36.2i 

M9l 


■  •;  .  '  1  v  '  '  i 

.  .  •  :  .  ff .  •*-,  ;  •  • 

.•  t.  s-*<,  j  ,  ^  v,  !  ■  "«  ♦.  Vj  ^  ‘  '«£  «'  1  f  •  *  ’•!  *1  ^  ‘  'v  ?  ^  *  **  *1  ♦  i  '>  ■/»*  ? '.>  .  '  . 

I  >  4  t  .  L-  \  -  *v  *  ,  •  :•  V  ,•  *  if/  :  >  *  C  •  •*  *  »  v  <  ■•  !  ••  >'  •„  •*  , 

4  ‘  .  '  ••  ■  u  !•  •  «  ■  •  ' 

,  ■■  '■  •  .  .  ■  _  .  ■  .  . 

.  ■  ^  **■  V  *.  t  f  "  ,  <  -  '  \  •  ...  '  *.*  7  ,**  *  .*..  . 

■  •  f 

*  ■  :*  '*  i->  •  V  •  .  .  -  '  v  :  “  .  '.  ,'  <•  .f  '  ‘  •  <  •/',,  .i  \  #.f  .  -  ...  i%  , 

•  ■  . 

.  ■  •  ■  .■  i  ■  v  :  ;  •"  '  •  t  y  \ 

\  .  .  '  .  .  I  .  . 

V  ■  '  .  1  ■  \  ■  • 

V..>  •:  '  vS/t&.v*  ■  -  ' 

■  «>  '*y$  '  .  .. 

v  ;  ,  .  ■  ■.  :  *  ■. 

•  .  .  ■  ; .  v;..:  .  '  r  . 


I  :  (hompti r  ii-,ori' ot I'lbelfebsM 
}  [buy ''icn4 ■: 


|  ■  /,  .f’Ctl'ea  \ 

\  ^  . '  . . M 


■  .•  •.  • .  '  ;  :\.r'*:C-&y& 


ISABi  I.  BtVtt.R 


THE  UNIVERSITY 


OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


Presented  in  1923 
by  Professor 
Isabel  Bevier 

656.26 

M9lc 

cop  2 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/comparisonofmeth00mumf_0 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


BULLETIN  No.  103 


COMPARISON  OF  METHODS  OF 
PREPARING  CORN  AND  CLOVER  HAY  FOR 

FATTENING  STEERS 


By  HERBERT  W.  MDMFORD 


URBANA,  AUGUST,  1905 


Summary  of  Bulletin  No.  103 

Object. — A  comparison  of  the  methods  of  preparing  and  feeding  corn  and 
clover  hay  to  fattening  cattle  to  determine  which  would  return  to  cattle  feeders 
the  largest  profits.  Also  to  secure  data  on  the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  the 
cattle  feeder  can  afford  to  buy  nitrogenous  concentrates  to  supplement  corn  when 
an  abundant  supply  of  clover  hay  or  other  nitrogenous  roughage  is  available. 

Page  3. 

Plan. — The  test  involved  130  two  year  old  one  thousand  pound  choice  feeding 
steers.  The  steers  cost  $4.53  per  hundred  weight  in  the  feed  lots.  These  were 
divided  into  ten  lots  with  each  of  which  a  different  method  of  preparing  corn  or 
clover  hay  was  tested.  That  is,  the  ten  lots  of  steers  were  fed  either  silage,  ear 
corn,  shelled  corn,  fodder  corn,  corn  meal,  or  corn  and  cob  meal  with  clover  hay, 
the  latter  being  chaffed  and  mingled  with  the  grain  part  of  the  ration  in  two  in¬ 
stances.  The  experiment  began  November  28,  1903,  and  ended  June  2,  1904,  a 
period  of  186  days.  Price  of  feeds  used  was  as  follows :  Ear  corn,  35  cents  per 
70  pounds;  clover  hay,  $8.00  per  ton;  gluten  meal,  $29.00;  oil  meal  (linseed 
cake),  $24.00  per  ton.  It  cost  the  following  amounts  to  prepare  feeds  used: 
Breaking  ear  corn,  20  cents  per  ton ;  shelling  corn,  34  cents ;  grinding  corn  meal, 
$1.20;  grinding  corn  and  cob  meal,  $1.44;  and  chaffing  hay,  $1.00  per  ton.  Hogs 
followed  each  lot  of  steers  to  recover  undigested  feed.  The  pork  thus  produced 
was  taken  into  account  in  the  financial  statement.  Page  4. 

Rapidity  of  Gains. — The  daily  gain  per  steer  varied  in  the  various  lots  from 
2.08  to  2.45  pounds, — the  average  daily  gain  per  steer  of  all  the  lots  was  2.25 
pounds  or  419  pounds  per  steer  for  the  whole  time.  Page  13. 

Economy  of  Gains. — The  cheapest  gains  were  made  where  the  labor  element 
in  preparing  feed  was  reduced  to  the  minimum.  Page  22. 

Nature  of  Gains. — High  marketable  finish  in  most  instances  accompanied 
maximum  labor  expenditure  in  preparation  of  feed,  but  as  high  finish  was  se¬ 
cured  in  some  instances  with  smaller  outlay  for  labor.  Page  33. 

Profit  and  Loss. — The  lots  fed  with  relatively  small  expenditure  of  labor 
took  the  lead  in  net  profits.  The  ten  lots  sold  for  an  average  of  about  $6.10  per 
hundred  weight.  There  was  only  one  other  load  on  the  Chicago  market  on  the 
day  of  this  sale  that  sold  up  to  $6.10  per  hundred  weight.  The  margin  between 
buying  and  selling  price  necessary  to  insure  the  feeder  against  loss  varied  from 
$.97  to  $1.53  per  hundred  weight.  The  prices  for  the  finished  cattle  sold  returned 
margins  of  from  $1.42  to  $1.62  per  hundred  weight  not  crediting  the  gains  made 
by  the  pigs.  Page  33. 


Conclusions. 


Page  39. 


££  ^  ^  I  t'  &  X€*  I 


(a  3  L> ,  2~  <o 

M  9  I  c 

c.»p,  E. 


COMPARISON  OF  METHODS  OF 
PREPARING  CORN  AND  CLOVER  HAY  FOR 

FATTENING  STEERS 

By  HERBERT  W.  MUMFORD,  Chief  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Introduction 

During  the  past  three  years  the  author  has  made  it  a  point  to  get 
into  communication  with  as  many  Illinois  beef  producers  as  possible 
in  order  to  study  their  problems  and  investigate  their  needs.  Judg¬ 
ing  from  the  correspondence  with  these  men  it  seems  clear  that  there 
is  no  subject  connected  with  the  business  that  is  of  greater  interest  to 
them  than  that  of  how  best  to  utilize  the  most  available  feeds  of 
Illinois, — corn  and  clover  hay.  It  would  be  impossible  to  investigate 
experimentally  every  method  and  combination  in  which  these  feeds 
might  be  used.  However  a  sufficient  number  of  them  were  tested  in 
the  experiment  here  reported  to  establish  certain  underlying  prin¬ 
ciples  in  the  preparation  and  use  of  these  feeds  and  the  bearing  of 
these  methods  upon  the  extent,  economy  and  quality  of  production. 

Object 

The  principal  object  of  this  experiment  was  to  determine  which 
method  of  preparing  and  feeding  corn  and  clover  hay  to  fatten¬ 
ing  cattle  would  return  to  cattle  feeders,  under  varying  condi¬ 
tions,  the  largest  profits.  Obviously,  conditions  vary  to  such  a  large 
extent  that  the  same  method  would  not  be  equally  successful  under 
all  of  them.  Some  methods  are  very  efficient  for  beef  production,  but 
require  a  large  amount  of  labor  and  practically  eliminate  the  pork 
producing  factor.  Other  methods,  while  not  particularly  efficient 
for  beef  production,  make  a  good  showing  for  combined  beef  and 
pork  production  and  require  but  a  minimum  amount  of  labor.  Def¬ 
inite  data,  therefore,  are  required  on  the  use  of  these  feeds  in  their 
various  forms  that  the  cattle  feeder  knowing  his  conditions  may  be 
able  to  select  that  form  of  preparation  and  such  methods  of  feeding 
as  may  best  suit  his  conditions. 

It  is  a  fact  clearly  demonstrated  by  experiment  and  the  experi¬ 
ence  of  a  large  number  of  successful  cattle  feeders  that  where  the 
corn  crop  is  supplemented  with  a  roughage  only,  the  use  of  a  ni- 

3 


599135 


4 


Bulletin  No.  10.3. 


[ August , 


trogenous  one,  such  as  clover  or  alfalfa  hay,  is  followed  with 
better  results  than  the  use  of  a  roughage  relatively  low  in  its  con¬ 
tent  of  nitrogen  like  the  straws  and  timothy  hay.  Three  rea¬ 
sons  for  this  fact  may  be  stated.  First,  that  in  itself,  corn  with 
its  own  roughage  is  relatively  low  in  its  content  of  nitrogen. 
Hence,  if  other  feeds  are  used  as  supplements  they  should  be 
of  such  composition  as  properly  to  balance  the  ration  to  meet  the 
demands  of  the  animal  body.  Second,  that  clover  hay,  a  roughage 
relatively  rich  in  nitrogen,  is  cheaper  than  timothy  hay.  Third,  that 
whether  or  not  nitrogenous  roughages  can  fully  supplement  corn  and 
thus  be  advantageously  used  as  substitutes  for  nitrogenous  concen¬ 
trates,  they  are  an  available  source  of  protein  because  largely  grown 
on  Illinois  farms,  hence,  should  be  used  in  preference  to  purchased 
nitrogenous  feeds  though  not  necessarily  to  their  exclusion. 

Another  object  of  this  test  was  to  secure  data  on  the  question  as 
to  whether  or  not  the  cattle  feeder  can  afford  to  buy  nitrogenous 
concentrates  to  supplement  corn  when  an  abundant  supply  of  clover 
hay  is  available  and  to  what  extent  the  answer  to  this  question  is 
dependent  upon  the  price  of  the  feeds  involved. 

PLAN  of  Experiment 

The  steers  used  were  purchased  in  the  Chicago  market  during 
the  months  of  October  and  November,  1903.  In  all,  136  head  aver¬ 
aging  about  1000  pounds  each  were  purchased.  After  discarding 
six  steers  which  lacked  in  quality  and  thrift,  the  ten  lots  comprising 
the  test  were  selected.  Taking  the  130  head  as  a  whole  they  would 
grade  as  choice*  feeding  cattle. 

For  the  past  few  years  it  has  been  exceedingly  difficult  to  get  to¬ 
gether  either  locally  or  by  purchase  at  the  feeding  cattle  markets  a 
large  number  of  native  feeders  possessing  sufficient  uniformity  and 
quality  to  grade  as  choice.  When  it  is  found  desirable  to  confine  se¬ 
lections  to  native  dehorned  cattle  of  one  breed,  uniform  in  weight 
and  age,  we  have  a  most  difficult  task;  however,  all  these  limita¬ 
tions  have  been  found  desirable  and  practically  speaking  essential  in 
feeding  cattle  which  are  to  be  sorted  into  lots  for  testing  efficiency  of 
various  rations. 

High  grade  Short-Horn  steers  were  selected,  not  because  they 
are  considered  better  for  beef  making  purposes,  but  because  high 
grades  of  this  breed  are  more  numerous  in  the  cattle  market  and 
therefore  more  available  to  the  Experiment  Station  than  those  of 
any  of  the  other  beef  breeds.  These  steers  averaged  about  two  and 
one  half  years  of  age.  Like  the  majority  of  high  grade  Short-Horn 

*For  description  of  this  grade  of  feeding  cattle  see  Bulletin  No.  78,  Illinois  Experiment 
Station. 


1905.']  Methods  of  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers. 


5 


feeding  cattle  these  steers  were  of  the  rugged  growthy  type, — some 
of  them  were  too  long  of  leg  and  rather  coarse  to  be  ideal  feeders. 

They  were  put  into  the  dry  lot  immediately  upon  their  arrival  at 
the  University  farm  and  all  were  similarly  treated  until  within 
a  week  of  the  time  the  experiment  began  when  they  were  gradually 
accustomed  to  the  rations  to  be  fed  during  the  test.  For  this  purpose 
the  130  cattle  were  divided  into  ten  lots,  six  of  which  contained  15 
steers  each,  while  four  contained  10  steers  each.  These  lots  together 
with  the  rations  each  received  were  as  follows : 

Table  1.— Steers,  Pigs,  and  Feeds  Used  in  Each  Lot 


Lot 

No. 

1 

No.  of 
steers  in 
each  lot. 

No.  of 
pigs  in 
each  lot.* 

Feeds  and  methods  of  preparation.  (Gluten 
meal  fed  first  half  and  oil  meal 
second  half  of  experiment). 

1 

10 

1 

Silage,  corn  meal,  gluten  meal,  oil  mealf 
and  clover  hay. 

2 

15 

8 

Ear  corn,  gluten  meal,  oil  meal  and  clover 
hav. 

3 

15 

8 

Ear  corn  and  clover  hay. 

4 

15 

4 

Corn  meal,  gluten  meal,  oil  meal  and  clover 
hay. 

5 

15 

4 

Corn  meal,  gluten  meal,  oil  meal,  clover 
hay, — hay  chaffed  and  mingled  with  the 
grain. 

6 

15 

4 

Corn  and  cob  meal,  gluten  meal,  oil  meal 
and  clover  hay. 

7 

15 

4 

Corn  and  cob  meal,  gluten  meal,  oil  meal, 
hay, — hay  chaffed  and  mingled  with 
the  grain. 

8 

10 

6 

Shock  corn,  ear  corn,  (according  to  com¬ 
mon  practice)  and  clover  hay,  oil  meal 
being  fed  during  the  latter  part  of 
feeding  period. 

9 

10 

7 

Shelled  corn,  gluten  meal,  oil  meal  and 
clover  hay,  (fed  in  ordinary  dirt  or  mud 
lot). 

10 

10 

7 

Shelled  corn,  gluten  meal,  oil  meal  and 
clover  hay  (fed  in  paved  lot  in  compar¬ 
ison  with  lot  9). 

*The  number  of  pigs  in  each  lot  varied  somewhat  from  time  to  time,  as  conditions 
required,  but  the  number  here  given  represents  an  average  number  throughout  the 
feeding  period. 

t  Old  process  ground  linseed  cake,  pea  size. 


G 


Bulletin  No.  103. 


[ August , 


Gluten  meal  was  fed  during  the  first  half  of  the  feeding  period, 
and  old  process  linseed  cake  (pea  size)  during  the  second  half. 
There  was  no  special  reason  for  the  change  from  gluten  meal  to  lin¬ 
seed  cake  except  to  furnish  variety.  Gluten  meal  was  fed  instead 
of  cotton  seed  meal  because  it  is  a  corn  product,  and  because  cot¬ 
ton  seed  meal  was  thoroughly  tested  in  a  former  experiment*  at  this 
Station  in  which  it  proved  a  most  excellent  supplement  to  corn. 
Where  not  otherwise  specified  the  clover  hay  was  fed  uncut  in  the 
ordinary  manner. 

As  in  previous  experiments,  pigs  were  provided  to  follow  the 
steers  to  utilize  whatever  undigested  food-stuffs  passed  through 
the  steers.  For  the  purpose  of  testing  the  efficiency  of  feeds  for 
combined  beef  and  pork  production  it  is  believed  best  to  put  a  suffi¬ 
cient  number  of  pigs  behind  the  steers  to  consume  the  droppings 
available  for  pork  production.  It  is  obvious  that  to  get  the  greatest 
returns  from  the  droppings  and  still  determine  the  relative  amount 
of  pork  that  the  undigested  food  in  the  droppings  of  each  lot  of 
steers  would  make,  the  number  of  pigs  should  be  kept  as  small  as  pos¬ 
sible,  as  under  this  system  a  minimum  amount  of  food  found  in  the 
droppings  is  used  for  the  mere  maintenance  of  the  animal.  This  was 
the  plan  followed  in  determining  the  number  of  pigs  used  with  each 
lot  of  cattle  involved  in  this  experiment.  The  regulation  of  the  num¬ 
ber  of  pigs  with  each  lot  of  steers  was  attended  with  considerable 
difficulty  owing  to  the  variation  in  the  nature  of  the  concentrates  fed 
the  cattle  and  the  consequent  variation  in  amount  of  feed  available 
to  the  pigs.  The  common  practice  of  Illinois  cattle  feeders  is  to  put 
in  from  one  to  two  pigs  per  steer  and  feed  corn  in  addition  to  the 
droppings  in  amounts  determined  by  the  appetites  of  the  pigs. 

The  feed  racks  were  so  constructed  and  the  feeding  done  in 
such  manner  that  practically  the  only  grain  available  for  hog  food 
had  first  passed  through  the  steers.  Results  of  former  feeding  ex¬ 
periments  made  it  possible  to  determine  approximately  the  percent¬ 
age  of  corn  fed  in  various  forms  to  the  steers  that  would  eventually 
be  available  in  the  droppings  for  hog  food.  Bulletin  83,  Illinois 
Experiment  Station. 

These  data  were  helpful,  but  notwithstanding  this  fact,  frequent 
changes  were  found  to  be  necessary  during  the  first  few  weeks  in 
order  to  provide  each  lot  with  the  proper  number.  The  hogs  used 
were  fairly  thrifty  shoats  of  miscellaneous,  and  in  some  instances 
indifferent  breeding,  from  six  months  to  one  year  of  age.  They  av¬ 
eraged  about  no  pounds  in  weight  at  the  beginning  of  the  experi¬ 
ment.  The  matter  of  the  hogs  following  the  steers  will  be  more 
fully  discussed  in  the  later  pages  of  this  bulletin. 


^Bulletin  No.  90. 


1905.']  Methods  of  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers. 


7 


Great  care  was  exercised  in  making  up  the  various  lots  of  steers 
and  the  pigs  following  same  that  none  should  have  the  advantage 
over  others  at  the  beginning  so  far  as  age,  quality,  or  condition  was 
concerned.  All  will  recognize  the  importance  of  such  even  division, 
but  few  will  appreciate  the  difficulties  attending  it.  All  critics 
agree  that  the  lots  were  very  uniform,  and  evenly  graded  and  that 
whatever  differences  occurred  during  the  progress  of  the  experiment 
were  occasioned  by  differences  in  the  rations  fed. 

As  the  shelter,  feed  lots,  and  water  supply  provided  for  the  steers 
during  this  experiment  were  the  same  as  those  used  in  the  Market 
Grade  Experiment,  the  following  statement  taken  from  Bulletin  No. 
90  will  cover  these  points. 

Shelter,  Feed  Lots,  and  Water  Supply 

“The  shelter  provided  for  the  various  lots  of  steers  used  in  this 
experiment  consisted  of  a  low  shed  open  to  the  south,  very  similar  to 
the  open  sheds  in  common  use  for  cattle  feeding  in  the  corn  belt.  It 
could  hardly  be  said  that  the  feed  lots  were  like  those  commonly  seen 
in  Illinois,  for,  with  the  exception  of  feed  lot  No.  9  they  were  all 
paved  with  brick.  It  is  impossible  to  get  two  feed  lots  in  which 
conditions  would  be  precisely  the  same  without  some  provision  for 
keeping  the  cattle  out  of  the  mud.  As  the  feed  lots  were  small, 
36x48  feet,  with  a  12-foot  shed  running  along  the  north  side,  mak¬ 
ing  the  total  size  36x60  feet,  paving  with  brick  seemed  the 
most  practicable  system.  The  lots  were  not  paved  under  the  sheds, 
where  the  ground  was  protected  from  all  surface  water.  The  sheds 
were  kept  well  bedded,  but  no  attempt  was  made  to  bed  the  pave¬ 
ment.  The  lots  were  frequently  cleaned,  and  in  wet  weather  the 
consistency  of  the  manure  on  the  pavement  was  such  that  it  could 
have  been  handled  more  advantageously  had  litter  of  some  sort  been 
freely  mingled  with  it.  The  price  of  bedding  at  the  time  prohibited 
its  use  for  this  purpose.  During  the  day  the  steers  had  access  to 
pure  fresh  water  stored  in  galvanized  steel  tanks  into  which  it  was 
drawn  from  the  University  plant.  Late  in  the  evening  of  each  day 
during  the  coldest  weather  the  water  was  all  drawn  from  the  tanks 
by  means  of  a  convenient  device  in  the  bottom  of  each  and  carried 
away  in  a  tile  provided  for  that  purpose.” 

A  detailed  description  of  the  Station  experimental  feed  lots  ac¬ 
companied  with  drawings  and  cuts  will  be  published  in  circular  form 
at  an  early  date  and  will  be  supplied  to  all  who  send  requests  for  it. 

Preliminary  Feeding 

The  preliminary  feeding  lasted  one  week,  beginning  with  No¬ 
vember  21,  during  which  time  the  steers  were  gradually  started  on 
rations  similar  to  those  subsequently  fed  in  the  experiment. 


8 


Bulletin  No.  103. 


[August 


During  this  preliminary  feeding  a  large  proportion  of  the  ration 
of  all  the  steers  was  roughage,  a  comparatively  light  grain  ration 
being  fed;  the  latter  amounted  approximately  to  4.5  pounds  daily  to 
each  steer  at  the  end  of  the  preliminary  feeding  period,  while  the 
former  was  approximately  double  that  amount.  Taking  the  whole 
of  the  preliminary  feeding  period  into  account  the  proportion  of 
grain  to  roughage  fed  was  as  1  \2.y.  The  average  daily  gain  of  each 
steer  for  the  seven  days  was  3.21  pounds.  The  grain  consumed  per 
pound  of  increase  in  live  weight  was  1.69  pounds  and  of  roughage 
4.64  pounds.  The  actual  cost  of  gains  per  hundred  weight  on  the 
entire  130  steers  during  the  preliminary  feeding  (Nov.  21-28)  was 
$2.98.  “Such  results  are  to  be  anticipated  when  well  shrunk,  thin 
feeding  steers  are  placed  in  the  feed  lot  and  permitted  the  luxury 
of  more  liberal  feeding.”* 

Method  of  Feeding  Steers 

The  experiment  proper  began  November  28,  1903,  and  from  that 
date  throughout  the  experiment  the  steers  were  fed  grain  and  rough- 
age  twice  daily,  grain  being  fed  before  the  roughage.  During  the 
winter  months,  they  received  their  grain  at  seven  a.  m.  and  at  four 
p.  m.,  the  roughage  being  fed  as  soon  as  the  feeding  of  the  grain 
was  finished.  Grain  and  hay,  except  where  the  latter  was  chaffed, 
were  fed  in  separate  racks.  As  the  season  advanced  the  morning  ra¬ 
tion  was  fed  earlier  and  the  evening  ration  later  in  the  day. 

Both  the  steers  and  the  pigs  were  weighed  every  two  weeks. 
The  initial  weights  were  secured  by  taking  the  average  of  the 
weights  on  November  27,  28,  and  29,  considering  this  average  as 
the  proper  weight  for  the  middle  day,  November  28.  In  securing 
the  weights  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment  and  all  subsequent 
weights,  the  steers  were  weighed  before  their  morning  feed  of  grain 
and  roughage,  water  having  been  withheld  since  the  night  before. 

Quality  and  Cost  oe  Feeds 

The  gluten  and  linseed  meal  were  both  of  good  grades ;  the 
former  was  the  “Cream”  brand,  the  latter  “Old  Process,"  pea  size. 
With  the  exception  of  an  occasional  bale  the  clover  hay  used  graded 
No.  1.  The  corn  graded  No.  1  Yellow.  The  corn  used  was  82.25 
percent  grain  and  17.75  percent  cob.  The  feeds  used  were  prepared 
at  the  University  cattle  feeding  plant.  That  is  to  say,  the  shelling 
and  grinding  of  corn  and  chaffing  of  the  hay  were  all  accom¬ 
plished  on  the  University  farm.  Both  the  corn  meal  and  the  corn 


^Bulletin  83,  Illinois  Experiment  Station,  pajre  548. 


1905.]  Methods  of  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers. 


9 


and  cob  meal  were  finely  ground.  The  shock  (fodder)  corn  and 
silage  used  were  grown  in  the  same  field  on  the  University  farm  and 
the  plots  reserved  for  use  were  selected  with  the  greatest  care  that 
the  quality  and  proportion  of  grain  to  stover  should  be  the  same  in 
each  instance.  The  corn  yielded  42.69  bushels  per  acre.  Eighty 
pounds  to  the  bushel  of  ears  is  taken  as  the  basis  as  the  corn  was 
weighed  when  first  husked.  The  stover  yielded  1.3 1  tons  per  acre 
On  this  basis  56.6  percent  of  the  total  crop  was  grain  and  43.4  per¬ 
cent  stover. 

Taking  into  account  depreciation  in  machinery  by  wear  and  the 
actual  labor  involved,  the  records  show  that  it  cost  the  following 
amounts  to  prepare  feeds  used : 

Per  ton 

Breaking  ear  corn  for  lots  2  and  3  $.010  per  cwt.  or . $  .20 

Shelling  corn  for  lots  9  and  10  $.017  per  cwt.  or . 34 

Grinding  corn  meal  for  lots  4  and  5  $.060  per  cwt.  or .  1.20 

Grinding  corn  and  cob  meal  for  lots  6  and  7  $.072  pei  cwt.  or.  .  1.44 
Chaffing  hay  by  running  through  ensilage  machine  $.050  per 

cwt.  or .  1. 00 

Price  oe  Feeds  Including  Cost  oe  Preparation 


Per  ton 

Ear  corn,  $.35  per  bu.,  or . $10.00 

Broken  ear  corn .  10.20 

Oil  meal  (ground  linseed  cake,  pea  size) .  24.00 

Gluten  meal .  29.00 

Clover  hay .  8.00 

Chaffed  clover  hay .  9.00 

Shelled  corn  including  cost  of  shelling .  12.48 

Corn  meal  including  cost  of  grinding  (and  of  shelling  the 

corn  before  grinding) .  13-34 

Corn  and  cob  meal  including  cost  of  grinding .  11.44 

Shock  (fodder)  corn  including  cost  of  hauling  to  feed  lots.  .  5.40 

Silage .  2.75 


The  following  table  is  presented  because  many  cattle  feeders  will 
be  interested  in  knowing  just  how  much  and  what  kind  of  grain  and 
how  much  and  what  kind  of  roughage  the  steers  received  daily  by 
periods  during  the  various  stages  of  the  fattening  process. 


10 


Bulletin  No.  103. 


[ August , 


Table  2.— Daily  Ration  per  Steer  by  Periods  (Pounds) 


Lot 

No. 

Feeds. 

Periods  * 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Corn  meal . 

3  05 

7.95 

9.94 

— 

11.4* 

14.04 

19.81 

Gluten  meal . 

2.43 

3  20 

3.20 

1  29 

1 

Oil  meal . 

1.82 

3.00 

3.00 

Silage . 

28.32 

30.00 

28.18 

22.96 

19.94 

14.46 

Clover  hay . 

12  12 

8.36 

6  23 

6.00 

6.11 

5.87 

Ear  corn .  . 

0  84 

18.13 

20  66 

21.72 

23.20 

24.14 

o 

Gluten  meal . 

2.43 

3.07 

3.07 

1.34 

Oil  meal . 

1.72 

8.00 

3.00 

Clover  hay . 

13.33 

9.83 

7.82 

6.70 

6.66 

5.46 

•> 

Ear  corn . 

9.84 

19.01 

21.87 

23.48 

24.64 

25.23 

0 

Clover  hay . 

14.60 

11.02 

8.20 

6.70 

6.66 

5  66 

• 

Corn  meal . 

7.86 

14.36 

16.48 

17.63 

20.15 

20.46 

Gluten  meal  . . 

2.43 

3.07 

3.07 

1.32 

4 

Oil  meal . 

1.72 

3.00 

2.93 

Clover  hay . 

13.33 

9.83 

8.05 

7.93 

8.00 

6  96 

• 

Corn  meal . . 

7.86 

14.64 

16.48 

17.68 

20.47 

20.65 

m , 

Gluten  meal . 

2  43 

3.07 

3.07 

1.32 

0 

Oil  meal  . 

1.72 

3  00 

3.00 

Chaffed  hay . 

13.33 

10.09 

8  09 

7.98 

8.00 

7.04 

Corn  and  cob  meal  . 

9.80 

18.35 

20.66 

21.95 

23.68 

25.96 

n 

Gluten  meal  . 

2.43 

3.07 

3.07 

1.32 

t) 

Oil  meal . 

1.72 

3.00 

3.00 

Clover  hay .  . 

13.33 

9  83 

8.15 

6.70 

6-66 

5.69 

Corn  and  cob  meal . 

9.80 

18.35 

20.66 

21.95 

24.61 

24.99 

Gluten  meal . 

2.43 

3.07 

3.07 

1.32 

t 

Oil  meal . 

1.72 

3.00 

3.00 

Clover  hay . . 

13.33 

10.09 

8.23 

6.70 

6.66 

5.47 

Ear  corn  . 

4.39 

21.57 

23.02 

24.94 

u 

Oil  meal . 

1  78 

3.00 

3.00 

0 

Shock  corn . 

24.59 

33.77 

35.38 

3.93 

Clover  hay .  . 

12.02 

7.71 

6.39 

6.36 

6.09 

5.80 

Shelled  corn.  . 

7.93 

14.45 

16.55 

17.52 

19.54 

20.72 

Q 

Gluten  meal .  ... 

2.51 

3  20 

3.20 

1  29 

y 

Oil  meal . 

1.82 

3.00 

3.00 

Clover  hay . 

13.40 

10.08 

8  31 

8.00 

8.00 

7.61 

Shelled  corn . 

7.93 

14.45 

16.55 

17  52 

19.86 

20.72 

1  n 

Gluten  meal . . 

2.51 

3  20 

3.20 

1  19 

1  u 

Oil  meal . . 

1  82  | 

3  00 

3.00 

Clover  hay.  . . . 

13  40 

10.08 

8  31 

8.00 

8.00 

7.64 

*  Period  1  extended  from  November  28  to  December  2b,  1903;  period  2,  December  26, 
1903,  to  January  23,  1904;  period  3,  January  23  to  February  20;  period  4,  February  20  to 
March  19;  period  5,  March  19  to  April  16;  period  6,  April  16  to  June  1. 


Since  the  average  weights  of  the  steers  in  the  various  lots  were 
similar  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment  and  as  the  gains  made 
by  the  various  lots  were  not  greatly  different,  the  discussion  of  the 
points  brought  out  in  Tables  2  and  3  will  follow  Table  3. 


1905.]  Methods  of  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers. 


11 


In  general,  however,  there  is  so  much  variation  in  the  weights  of 
fattening  cattle  that  from  the  student’s  standpoint  at  least,  the 
amounts  of  feed  fed  daily  per  thousand  pounds  of  live  weight  should 
be  carefully  studied.  Table  3  is,  therefore,  of  interest. 

Table  .3.— Daily  Ration  per  Thousand  Pounds  Live  Weight 

by  Periods 


Lot 

No. 

Feeds. 

Periods.* 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Corn  meal . 

2.87 

7.21 

8.40 

9.22 

10.82 

10.22 

Gluten  meal . 

2.29 

2  91 

2.70 

1.04 

1 

Oil  meal . 

1.47 

2.31 

2.12 

Silage . 

22.67 

27.25 

23  60 

18.26 

15  36 

10.22 

Clover  hav . 

11.39 

7.60 

5.26 

4.85 

4.70 

4.14 

Ear  corn  . 

9.01 

15.83 

17.06 

17.13 

17.57 

16.85 

2 

Gluten  meal. . 

2.22 

2.53 

2.48 

1.06 

Oil  meal . . 

1.34 

2.27 

2.09 

Clover  hay . 

12.22 

8  60 

6  55 

5.28 

5.05 

3.81 

O 

Ear  corn,  broken . 

9.30 

17.47 

19  04 

19.57 

19.82 

18.83 

o 

Clover  hay  . . 

13.85 

10.12 

7.13 

5.58 

5.36 

4.21 

Corn  meal . 

7.56 

13.23 

14.33 

14.52 

16.12 

14.87 

A 

Gluten  meal . 

2.34 

2  83 

2.66 

1.08 

4 

Oil  meal . . 

1.41 

2.36 

2.16 

Clover  hav . 

12.79 

9.06 

6.99 

6.51 

6.31 

5.17 

Corn  meal . 

7.21 

12.78 

13.95 

14.09 

15.87 

14  68 

r 

Gluten  meal . 

2.24 

2  68 

2.59 

1.05 

0 

Oil  meal .  .... 

1.37 

2.33 

2  13 

Chaffed  hay . 

12  27 

8.81 

6.85 

6  36 

6.20 

5.01 

Corn  and  cob  meal . 

9.17 

16.58 

17  32 

17.54 

18  24 

17.02 

Gluten  meal . 

2.23 

2. 77 

2.57 

1.06 

0 

Oil  meal . 

1.37 

2.31 

2.16 

Clover  hay . 

12.49 

8.89 

6.83 

5.35 

5.14 

4.10 

Corn  and  cob  meal . 

9.27 

16.74 

17.23 

17.75 

19.01 

1 7.75 

H 

Gluten  meal  . 

2.30 

2.79 

2.55 

1.06 

i 

Oil  meal . . 

1.39 

2.31 

2.13 

Clover  hay . 

12  62 

9.21 

6.86 

5.42 

5.14 

3.88 

Ear  corn . 

3.79 

17.99 

18.09 

18.26 

Q 

Oil  meal . 

1.48 

2.35 

2.19 

o 

Shock  corn  . 

22.75 

30.36 

30.60 

3.27 

Clover  hay . 

11.12 

6.93 

5  53 

5.39 

4.78 

4.25 

Shelled  corn . 

7.47 

12.82 

14.17 

14.61 

15.58 

15.27 

Q 

Gluten  meal  . . 

2.36 

2.84 

2.74 

1.07 

o 

Oil  meal . 

1.52 

2.39 

2.21 

Clover  hay . 

12.64 

8.95 

7.12 

6.66 

6.38 

5.24 

Shelled  corn . 

7.48 

12.88 

14.28 

14.59 

15.67 

15.47 

10 

Gluten  meal . 

2.37 

2.85 

2.76 

1.06 

Oil  meal . 

1.52 

2.37 

2.24 

Clover  hay . 

12.65 

8.99 

7.17 

6.65 

6.04 

5.59 

*  Period  1  extended  from  November  28  to  December  26.  1903;  period  2,  December  26, 
1903,  to  January  23,1901;  period  3,  January  23  to  February  20;  period  4,  February  20  to 
March  19;  period  5,  March  19  to  April  16;  period  6,  April  16  to  June  1. 


12 


Bulletin  No.  103. 


I  August , 


From  the  beginning  of  the  experiment  up  to  the  time  the  steers 
were  on  full  feed  all  the  lots  were  given  approximately  the  same 
amount  of  corn  per  thousand  pounds  live  weight.  This  precaution 
was  taken  to  avoid  the  possibility  of  larger  gains  and  greater  effi¬ 
ciency  of  feed  being  caused  by  the  varying  amounts  of  feed  rather 
than  the  character  of  the  ration  fed  to  the  several  lots.  This  proved 
an  expeditious  way  of  handling  the  experiment  and  seemed  to  meet 
the  requirements  of  the  steers  in  enabling  them  to  make  satisfactory 
gains  both  as  to  rapidity  and  economy.  Again,  when  the  steers 
were  on  full  feed  and  the  amounts  fed  were  governed  by  the  appe¬ 
tites  of  the  steers  the  amount  of  corn  fed  per  thousand  pounds  live 
weight  of  steers  was  fully  as  uniform  in  the  various  lots  as  it  had 
been  previous  to  that  time.  The  apparent  exceptions  to  this  uni¬ 
formity  in  the  amount  of  corn  fed  in  lots  3  and  8,  which  lots  re¬ 
ceived  more  corn  per  thousand  pounds  live  weight  than  did  the  other 
lots,  is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  lot  3  received  corn  only  as  a 
concentrate  and  lot  8,  corn  only  until  the  last  ninety  days.  Experi¬ 
ence  has  proved  that  to  get  the  best  results  from  silage  fed  to  two 
year  old  steers  during  the  fattening  period  they  should  not  receive 
large  amounts.  This  amount  of  silage  did  not  make  the  amount  of 
corn  fed  per  day  per  thousand  pounds  weight  of  steers  equal  to  that 
given  the  other  lots.  This  deficiency  was  made  up  by  the  use  of 
corn  meal. 

Ear  corn  was  taken  as  a  basis  of  the  amount  fed.  The  percent¬ 
age  of  corn  in  the  silage  was  known  as  was  also  the  percentage  of 
ear  corn  in  the  shock  corn  fed. 

The  table  shows  that  during  the  first  period  the  proportion  of 
concentrates  to  roughage  in  the  ration  was  about  as  1:1.3  with  the 
exception  of  lot  1.  If  silage  be  considered  a  roughage,  then  the  pro¬ 
portion  of  concentrates  to  roughages  in  lot  1  is  as  1  16.47;  hurt  if  it 
be  considered  one  half  a  concentrate  and  one  half  a  roughage,  cor¬ 
responding  approximately  to  the  relative  weights  of  grain  and 
stover,  then  the  proportions  are  about  the  same  as  in  the  other  lots. 
From  the  first  period  on,  the  proportion  of  grain  was  gradually  in¬ 
creased,  while  the  proportion  of  roughage  was  gradually  decreased. 
The  following  tabulation  for  lots  2  and  3  will  reinforce  the  thought : 


Period. 

Concentrate, 

pounds. 

Roughage, 

pounds. 

Proportion. 

1 

11.23 

12.22 

1  :  1.09 

Lot  2 . 

2 

18.36 

8.60 

1  :  0.46 

3 

19.54 

6.55 

1  :  0.33 

4 

19.53 

5.28 

1  :  0.27 

5 

19.84 

5.05 

1  :  0.25 

6 

18.94 

3.81 

1  :  0.20 

1905.]  Methods  of  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers. 


13 


Period. 

Concentrate, 

pounds. 

Roughage, 

pounds. 

Proportion. 

1 

9.30 

13.85 

1  :  1.49 

Lo  t  3 . . 

9 

17.47 

10.12 

1  :  0.57 

3 

19.04 

7 . 13 

1  :  0.37 

4 

19.57 

5.58 

1  :  0.27 

5 

19.82 

5.36 

1  :  0.26 

6 

18.83 

4.21 

1  :  0.22 

This  tabulation  also  shows  that  at  the  last  period  the  grain  ra¬ 
tion  was  about  five  times  that  of  the  roughage  portion,  or  as  i  :o.20. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  at  no  time  during  the  experiment  did 
the  amount  of  corn  fed  per  steer  per  day  much  exceed  one  third  of  a 
bushel  and  yet  during  period  5,  when  the  steers  received  the  heaviest 
grain  ration,  they  weighed  an  average  of  1350  pounds  each.  It  is 
also  noticeable  that  there  was  a  gradual  increase  in  the  amount  of 
concentrates  fed  up  to  and  including  the  fifth  month.  If  a  steer 
is  on  full  feed  when  he  is  getting  a  maximum  grain  ration  and  not 
till  then,  it  might  be  said  that  it  took  four  months  to  get  these  steers 
on  full  feed.  Reference  to  Table  2,  however,  will  show  that  the 
steers  were  practically  on  full  feed  during  the  third  month. 

The  average  weight  of  the  steers  at  the  beginning  of  the  ex¬ 
periment  and  the  average  daily  gain  per  steer  were  so  uniform  that 
the  relation  between  the  amount  of  feed  fed  daily  per  thousand 
pounds  weight  of  cattle  would  not  be  materially  different  from  the 
relation  between  the  amounts  fed  per  steer  per  day  in  the  various 
lots. 


Table  4.— Extent  and  Rapidity  of  Gains  in  Pounds  for  Each  Lot 


Lot 

Form  in  which  corn  was  fed. 

Average  weight 
per  steer. 

Average  gain  during 
experiment,  183 
days. 

No. 

Beginning 
of  experi¬ 
ment. 

Close  of 
experi¬ 
ment. 

Total  per 
steer. 

Per  steer 
per  day. 

1 

Silage  and  corn  meal 

1014.66 

1450.50 

435.84 

2.34 

2 

Ear  corn 

1045.30 

1479.00 

433.70 

2.33 

3 

Ear  corn  (without  nitrogenous 
concentrates) 

1009.73 

1396.00 

386.27 

2.08 

4 

Corn  meal 

998.80 

1441.66 

442.86 

2.38 

5 

Corn  meal  (hay  chaffed) 

1038.86 

1473  00 

434.14 

2.33 

6 

Corn  and  cob  meal 

1022.63 

1454.66 

432.03 

2.32 

7 

Corn  and  cob  meal  (hay  chaffed) 

1000.06 

1456.00 

455.94 

2.45 

8 

Shock  corn  and  ear  corn 

1037.50 

1425.00 

387.50 

2.08 

9 

Shelled  corn  (mud  lot) 

1027.33 

1402.50 

375.17 

2.02 

10 

Shelled  corn 

1029.50 

1400.50 

370.87 

1.99 

Gen’l  ave. 

1021.69 

1440.69 

419.00 

2.25 

14 


Bulletin  No.  103. 


[  August, 


Table  4  shows  the  average  weight  of  each  steer  in  each  lot  at  the 
beginning  and  end  of  the  experiment,  the  average  total  and  the 
average  daily  gain  per  steer  throughout  the  experiment. 

It  will  be  observed  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment  the 
average  weights  of  the  steers  in  the  different  lots  were  as  nearly 
uniform  as  could  be  expected  considering  the  large  number  of 
steers  involved,  the  greatest  variation  being  between  lot  4  and  lot  2. 
The  former  had  the  smallest  average  weight,  viz.,  998  pounds,  while 
the  average  in  lot  2  was  1045  pounds.  This  difference  is  of  less 
consequence  than  differences  in  quality,  thrift,  and  condition  in 
which  respect  the  various  lots  were  markedly  similar. 

Before  drawing  final  conclusions  from  the  data  presented  in 
this  table  the  reader  should  bear  in  mind  that  no  attempt  is  made 
here  to  show  which  feed  was  the  most  efficient  for  beef  or  pork  pro¬ 
duction  or  for  combined  beef  and  pork  production,  but  simply  the 
influence  of  the  various  feeds  upon  rapidity  of  gains  during  a  six 
months’  feeding  period.  The  data  presented  in  this  table  indicate 
that  the  feeding  of  corn  meal  or  corn  and  cob  meal  is  not  necessarily 
conducive  to  more  rapid  gains  than  the  feeding  of  ear  corn  when  each 
is  supplemented  as  in  lots  4,  5,  6,  7,  and-2.  The  variation  in  the-average 
daily  gains  in  these  lots,  together  with  lot  1,  is  so  slight  that  we  would 
not  be  warranted  in  saying  that  one  feed  or  ration  is  superior  to 
another  in  producing  rapid  gains.  In  comparing  the  gains  of  these 
lots  with  those  of  lots  3  and  8,  however,  there  is  a  sufficiently  wide 
difference  to  make  it  safe  to  conclude  that  supplementing  corn 
with  such  nitrogenous  concentrates  as  gluten  meal  and  oil  meal  has 
a  marked  influence  in  promoting  rapid  gains,  or  in  other  words  in 
producing  a  “quick  finish.”  This  fact  is  emphasized  by  comparing 
the  gains  made  in  lots  2  and  3.  Corn  was  fed  in  the  same  form  in 
both  these  lots.  In  lot  2  the  ear  corn  was  supplemented  with  gluten 
meal  and  oil  meal  and  the  average  daily  gain  per  steer  was  2.33 
pounds,  while  in  lot  3  where  no  gluten  meal  and  oil  meal  was  fed  to 
supplement  the  corn  the  average  daily  gain  per  steer  was  only  2.08. 
This  fact  will  be  further  discussed  under  Table  5. 

The  relatively  low  daily  gain  per  steer  in  lots  9  and  10,  in  both 
of  which  lots  the  corn  was  fed  in  the  form  of  shelled  corn,  indicates 
that  the  feeding  of  shelled  corn  is  not  favorable  to  securing  rapid 
gains  when  fed  to  two  year  old  cattle  in  the  dry  lot.  It  should  be 
observed  that  slightly  larger  gains  were  made  by  the  steers  in  lot  9 
(the  mud  lot)  than  by  those  in  lot  10  (the  paved  lot).  This  is  prob¬ 
ably  due  to  a  number  of  factors:  (a)  The  steers  in  the  mud  lot  as 
well  as  those  in  the  paved  lot  were  provided  at  all  times  with  a  dry 
comfortable  shed  in  which  to  lie  down  and  they  made  use  of  this 
shed  more  freely  than  did  the  steers  fed  on  the  paved  lots,  (b)  The 


1905.)  Methods  of  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers.  15 

weather  was  such  during  a  large  part  of  the  feeding  period  that  the 
mud  lot  was  frozen  and  was  a  mud  lot  only  in  name,  (c)  By  close 
observation  it  was  discovered  that  lot  io  did  not  have  as  good  facili¬ 
ties  for  getting  water  as  did  the  other  lots.  How  important  a  factor 
in  influencing  the  gains  the  latter  circumstance  may  have  been  we 
are  of  course  unable  to  say.  As  soon  as  this  apparent  handicap  to 
lot  io  was  discovered,  watering  facilities  similar  to  those  in  other 
lots  were  provided. 

However,  it  should  be  said  that  it  was  during  this  time  that  the 
mud  lot  was  in  the  worst  condition  and  relatively  larger  gains  in 
the  paved  lots  would  be  anticipated.  The  results  of  chaffing  and 
mingling  the  hay  with  the  grain  before  feeding  in  lots  5  and  7 
appear  somewhat  contradictory  as  compared  with  lots  4  and  6  re¬ 
spectively.  The  feeding  of  chaffed  hay  with  the  corn  meal  seems 
adverse  to  large  gains  as  compared  with  feeding  clover  hay  in  the 
ordinary  way.  In  feeding  chaffed  hay  with  corn  and  cob  meal  the 
effect  seems  to  be  favorable  to  the  use  of  chaffed  hay  for  securing 
rapid  gains.  These  differences,  however,  are  so  slight  that  it  is  safe 
to  say  that  the  mere  chaffing  of  the  hay  and  mingling  it  with  the 
grain  has  but  little,  if  any,  influence  on  securing  rapid  gains. 


Table  5. — Daily  Gain  per  Steer  in  Pounds  for  Each  Lot  by  Periods 

Periods  (28  days  each) 


Lot 

i\T0. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6* 

Form  in  which  corn 
was  fed. 

Nov.  28- 
Dec.  20. 

Deo.  26- 
Jan.  23. 

Jan.  23- 
Feb.  20. 

Feb.  20- 

Mar.  19. 

Mar.  19- 
Apr.  16. 

Apr.  16- 
June  1. 

Nov.  28, 
June  1, 
186  days. 

1 

Silage  and  corn  meal . . 

1.87 

2.82 

2.66 

1.68 

2.79 

2.28 

2.34 

2 

Ear  corn . 

1.09 

3.49 

2.48 

2.00 

2.21 

2.54 

2.33 

3 

Ear  corn  (without  ni¬ 
trogenous  concen¬ 
trates  . . 

1.31 

2.32 

1.98 

2.45 

1.56 

2.54 

2.08 

4 

Corn  meal . 

1.35 

2.80 

2.60 

1.88 

2.42 

2  79 

2.38 

5 

Corn  meal  (hay  chaffed) 

1.49 

3.02 

1.48 

2.25 

2  54 

2.88 

2.33 

6 

Corn  and  cob  meal . 

1.57 

3.35 

1.63 

2  54 

1.76 

2.79 

2.32 

7 

Corn  and  cob  meal  (hay 
chaffed) . 

2.16 

3.98 

1.31 

1.88 

2.57 

2.67 

2.45 

8 

Shock  corn  and  ear 
corn . 

1.52 

1.71 

2.14 

1.82 

2.13 

2.75 

2.08 

9 

Shelled  corn  (mud  lot). 

1.79 

2.77 

1.57 

1.36 

2.07 

2.34 

2.02 

10 

Shelled  corn . 

1.61 

2  73 

1.88 

.89 

2.20 

2.40 

1.99 

Gen’lave. 

1.56 

2.90 

1.96 

1.94 

2.21 

2.64 

2.25 

*  Period  6  has  46|days. 


1C 


Bulletin  No.  103. 


[ August , 


Table  5  shows  the  average  daily  gain  per  steer  by  periods  for 
each  lot  and  all  the  lots  and  the  average  daily  gains  of  the  steers  in 
each  lot  for  the  whole  time.  It  will  be  seen  that  each  of  the  periods 
was  twenty-eight  days  in  length  except  the  last  which  extended  over 
forty-six  days.  Experience  in  dealing  with  periodical  weighings 
of  cattle  has  shown  that  they  are  subject  to  large  variations  in 
weight  from  slight  or  even  unaccountable  reasons.  Because  of  this, 
the  fattening  period  is  divided  into  periods  of  four  weeks  or  longer 
notwithstanding  the  weights  of  the  cattle  were  taken  every  two 
weeks.  Since  the  cattle  were  fed  186  days  it  was  necessary  to  have 
the  last  period  either  longer  or  shorter  than  the  normal  four  weeks’ 
period.  The  same  reason  that  led  to  the  use  of  the  four  weeks’ 
period  instead  of  a  shorter  one  obtained  in  making  the  last  period 
one  of  forty-six  instead  of  twenty-eight  days  in  duration. 

It  has  frequently  happened  that  for  some  reason  small  gains  in 
weight  were  made  by  one  or  possibly  all  the  lots  during  a  two  weeks’ 
or  longer  period.  The  weights  at  the  end  of  the  period  immediately 
following  are  likely  to  show  that  the  steers  have  made  relatively 
large  gains  during  the  latter  period.  It  is  evident  therefore,  that  the 
weights  for  any  given  period  are  likely  to  be  misleading  and  may 
not  be  an  accurate  index  of  the  actual  progress  the  steers  are  making. 
When  the  period  extends  over  four  weeks  the  chances  for  making 
misleading  conclusions  from  data  showing  average  or  total  gains  of 
the  various  lots  or  the  relative  efficiency  of  feed  for  a  given  period 
are  greatly  reduced. 

There  must  of  course,  be  a  reason  for  these  occasional  abnormal 
weights.  As  has  been  intimated  it  is  possible  at  times  to  account  for 
such  variations  in  weight;  at  other  times  no  reason  can  be  assigned. 
In  referring  to  the  above  table  it  is  noticeable  that  the  gains  by  peri¬ 
ods  in  some  lots  are  approximately  the  same  throughout  the  feeding 
period,  while  in  other  lots  wide  variation  is  shown.  From  the  data 
tabulated  above  it  can  not  be  said  that  uniform  gains  throughout  the 
feeding  period  necessarily  indicate  large  average  daily  gains,  for  we 
find  that  the  widest  variation  to  be  found  between  the  gains  for  the 
various  periods  occurring  in  any  one  lot  is  found  in  lot  7  between 
periods  2  and  3.  It  is  true,  however,  that  in  lot  1,  the  lot  that  stood 
second  for  average  daily  gains  throughout  the  experiment,  the  larg¬ 
est  variation  between  periods  in  this  lot  was  the  smallest  found  in  any 
of  the  lots.  In  making  such  a  study,  however,  we  should  not  stop 
with  these  two  instances.  The  steers  in  lots  3  and  8  made  relatively 
small  average  daily  gains  and  it  will  be  seen  that  the  variation  in 
average  daily  gains  was  relatively  small.  Again  the  average  daily 
gains  throughout  the  experiment  in  lots  2  and  6  were  relatively  large, 
while  the  variation  in  gains  in  different  periods  were  relatively  large. 


1905.']  Methods  of  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers. 


17 


In  lot  io  the  average  daily  gain  of  each  steer  was  the  smallest  of 
the  lots,  while  the  variation  in  gains  by  periods  was  great.  These 
facts  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  uniformity  of  gains  through¬ 
out  the  feeding  period  do  not  necessarily  indicate  large  gains,  nor 
do  small  gains  invariably  follow  wide  variations.  Nor  can  it  be  said 
that  feeding  corn  in  the  form  of  meal  is  more  conducive  to  uniform 
gains  than  the  feeding  of  whole  corn.  There  is  but  little  difference 
in  this  respect. 

It  has  been  claimed  and  taught  by  many  experimenters,  and  in¬ 
deed  the  results  of  many  experiments  have  indicated,  that  the  rate  of 
gain  grows  smaller  toward  the  close  of  the  fattening  period.  It  will 
be  of  interest  therefore  to  study  the  results  of  this  test  with  that 
point  in  view.  The  general  average  in  the  above  table  shows  that 
the  smallest  daily  gain  was  made  during  the  first  month,  the  largest 
during  the  second  month.  From  the  second  to  the  fifth  month  the 
rate  of  increase  was  practically  constant,  but  gradually  increased 
during  the  fifth  and  sixth  periods.  Studying  the  individual  lots,  we 
find  the  smallest  gains  were  made  during  the  first  month  except  in 
lots  i,  5,  7,  9,  and  to,  and  in  these  the  gains  were  slightly  smaller 
during  either  the  third  or  fourth  period  than  during  the  first.  The 
largest  gains  were  in  the  second  period  in  all  lots  except  Nos.  3  and 
8,  in  which  the  heaviest  gains  were  made  in  the  final  period.  In 
other  words,  the  cattle  were  gaining  faster  when  marketed  than  at 
any  other  time  during  the  test  excepting  the  second  month.  Nor 
was  this  continued  gain  secured  at  the  expense  of  good  finish,  as  the 
cattle  were  said  by  most  of  the  buyers  and  by  all  of  the  beef  experts 
who  saw  them  in  the  coolers  to  be  as  fat  as  prime  beef  need  be.  As 
evidence  on  this  point  we  publish  copy  of  a  letter  received  from  the 

S.  &  S.  Co.,  Chicago.  ~  TT  0  a  t  1 

Chicago,  U.  S.  A.,  July  7,  1904. 

Professor  H.  W .  Mumford,  Dep’t  of  Animal  Husbandry ,  University 

of  Illinois ,  Urbana,  III. 

Dear  Sir:  In  further  reply  to  your  letter  of  June  14th,  beg  to 
advise  that  we  now  have  a  report  from  our  representatives  in 
London  covering  shipment  of  cattle  fed  by  you  and  purchased  by  us 
at  Chicago  Stock  Yards.  We  give  you  below  an  extract  of  their 
letter : 

“It  is  a  long  time  since  we  have  seen  such  a  quantity  of  good  beef 
in  one  lot.  If  there  is  any  fault  to  be  found  it  is  in  the  fact  that 
the  beef  was,  if  anything,  a  little  too  ripe  for  this  season  of  the  year. 
The  beef  found  a  ready  sale  and  brought  considerably  over  the 
market  price.  We  call  this  beef  excellent  both  as  regards  quality  and 
general  condition.” 

This  letter  was  written  by  our  agents  in  London,  England,  and 
we  trust  that  the  report  is  satisfactory  to  you. 

Yours  very  truly, 

(Signed)  S.  &  S.Co.,  Per  /.  B.  Maurer. 


18 


Bulletin  No.  103. 


[August , 


It  is  an  important  point  to  consider  that  the  gains  during  the  last 
six  weeks  of  the  experiment  were  larger  than  during  any  similar 
period  throughout  the  test.  It  will  be  observed  by  referring  to  the 
table  that  during  the  second  four  weeks’  period  the  average  daily 
gains  for  all  the  steers  were  slightly  higher  than  during  the  last  six 
weeks’  period.  But  if  this  high  gaining  period  is  made  comparable 
with  the  last  period  by  averaging  with  it  the  gains  for  the  two  weeks 
preceding  or  following,  we  find  that  the  gains  for  the  last  period  are 
better.  In  taking  periodical  weighings  of  experimental  live  stock  it 
is  frequently  observed,  as  has  elsewhere  been  noted, that  a  high  gain¬ 
ing  period  is  preceded  by  a  low  gaining  period  and  where  such  is  the 
case  the  apparent  gains  can  hardly  be  looked  upon  as  normal  for 
that  period.  This  is  clearly  shown  in  the  weights  exhibited  for 
periods  one  and  two. 

If,  however,  the  average  daily  gains  of  periods  five  and  six  are 
examined  it  can  be  readily  seen  that  the  relatively  large  gains  for  the 
latter  are  not  due  to  abnormally  low  gains  for  the  preceding  period. 
The  reason  for  these  large  gains  must  be  sought  elsewhere. 


Table  6.  — Pork  made  from  Droppings  in  the  Various  Lots 


Lot 

No. 

Form  in  which  corn 
was  fed. 

Number 
of  pigs 
per 
steer. 

Lb.  pork 
per 
steer. 

Pork  per 
100  lb. 
corn  as 
fed  to 
steers. 

Percent  cost  of 
feed  given  steers 
paid  for  by  gaint 
of  hogs 
following. 

1 

Silage  and  corn  meal. . 

.10 

6  30 

.19* 

.94 

2 

Ear  corn . 

.53 

62.60 

1.68 

9.70 

3 

Ear  corn  (without  ni¬ 
trogenous  c  o  n  c  e  ti¬ 
trates)  . 

.53 

74.13 

1.89 

14.05 

4 

Corn  meal . 

.27 

20.66 

.67 

3.00 

0 

Corn  meal  (hay  chaffed) 

.27 

20.02 

.65 

2.86 

6 

Corn  and  cob  meal . 

.27 

18.00 

.46 

2.60 

7 

Corn  and  cob  meal  (hay 
chaffed) . 

.27 

24.00 

.63 

3.34 

8 

Shock  corn  and  ear 
corn . 

.60 

73.50 

1.81 

12.72 

9 

Shelled  corn  (mud  lot) 

.70 

85.80 

2.79 

12.86 

10 

Shelled  corn . 

.70 

111.50 

3.61 

16.67 

^Computed  on  basis  of  ear  corn  in  silage  and  shock  corn. 
+Gain  on  hogs  valued  at  $5.00  per  hundred  weight. 


1905. ]  Methods  of  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers. 


19 


Table  6  shows  in  a  striking  manner  the  importance  of  the  pig  as 
a  factor  in  cattle  feeding  operations.  It  illustrates  clearly  that  in  de¬ 
ciding  upon  the  feeds  used  and  their  method  of  preparation  for  fat¬ 
tening  cattle  that  not  only  efficiency  of  rations  for  producing  gains 
on  cattle,  but  also  the  probable  gains  on  pigs  following  cattle  should 
likewise  receive  careful  consideration.  This  latter  factor  in  cattle 
feeding  has  received  much  attention  at  this  Station  as  reported  in 
Bulletins  Nos.  73,  83,  and  90.  The  accompanying  data  add  mater¬ 
ially  to  the  records  there  reported. 

The  most  striking  points  of  importance  brought  out  in  the  table 
are  the  relatively  small  amount  of  pork  produced  from  the  droppings 
of  the  silage-corn-meal-fed  steers ; — the  large  gains  made  by  the  pigs 
following  the  shelled-corn-fed  steers ; — and  the  fact  that  the  pigs  fol¬ 
lowing  the  ear-corn-fed  (without  nitrogenous  concentrates)  steers 
made  larger  gains  than  did  those  in  lot  2  where  ear  corn  was  so 
supplemented. 

That  only  6.3  pounds  pork  were  made  per  steer  in  lot  1  is  remark¬ 
able,  especially  so  when  we  consider  that  during  the  latter  part  of  the 
feeding  period  lot  1  received  considerable  corn  meal  in  addition  to 
the  silage  fed.  It  is  reasonable  to  expect  therefore,  that  the  gains 
on  pigs  in  this  lot  should  have  been  more  nearly  like  those  of  lots  4 
and  5  than  they  are.  At  least  two  causes  may  have  operated  in  pro¬ 
ducing  the  results  recorded.  First,  since  there  was  only  one  pig  fol¬ 
lowing  lot  1,  the  individuality  of  the  pig  would  play  a  very  important 
part  in  the  extent  of  gains  made  on  a  given  amount  of  feed.  In  this 
instance  there  is  not  much  ground  for  assuming  that  the  single  pig 
used  was  not  up  to  the  average  in  thrift  and  gaining  capacity  as 
compared  with  other  pigs  used  in  the  experiment.  When  the  gain 
per  pig  in  the  various  lots  is  considered  we  discover  that  the  varia¬ 
tion  is  much  less  than  the  gain  in  pork  for  each  steer,  which  would  of 
course  be  the  natural  outcome  where  pigs  are  thrifty  and  gaining,  as 
they  were  in  this  case.  The  gain  on  the  pig  in  the  silage  lot  was 
practically  as  good  as  the  average  of  those  in  lot  6  and  not  greatly 
inferior  to  those  of  lots  4  and  5.  The  most  rapid  gain  per  pig  is 
noted  in  the  lots  fed  shelled  corn,  though  it  is  not  distinctly  greater 
than  in  lots  2  and  3  (ear  corn),  or  lot  8  (shock  corn).  Previous 
tests  have,  without  exception,  shown  that  where  hogs  are  limited  to 
the  droppings  of  silage  fed  steers  they  get  very  little  benefit  from 
them.  For  example  in  Bulletin  No.  73  of  this  Station  the  writer  con¬ 
cluded  that  “Lot  1,  the  silage-fed  steers,  should  be  credited  with  the 
production  of  87  pounds  of  pork  in  88  days.”  In  the  experiment 
referred  to  28.75  tons  silage  were  fed  and  as  has  been  shown  87 
pounds  of  pork  were  credited  in  the  financial  statement.  In  the  ex¬ 
periment  now  involved,  21.45  tons  silage  were  fed  and  63  pounds  of 


20 


Bulletin  No.  103. 


f  August, 


pork  are  credited.  This  shows  that  lot  i  has  undoubtedly  been 
credited  with  sufficient  pork  to  cover  the  benefit  the  pigs  would  get 
from  the  droppings  of  steers  fed  this  quantity  of  silage,  and  whatever 
pork  is  credited  to  lot  i  in  addition  to  this  amount  should  be  credited 
as  a  result  of  the  feeding  of  the  corn  meal.  From  this  and  other  ex¬ 
periments  it  has  been  determined  that  for  each  ioo  pounds  of  corn 
meal  fed  to  steers  approximately  .65  of  a  pound  of  pork  is  made  by 
pigs  following  steers  so  fed.  The  records  of  this  experiment  show 
that  22,104  pounds  of  corn  meal  were  fed  lot  1  in  addition  to  the 
silage.  Hence  if  we  were  to  credit  lot  1  with  pork  produced  on  this 
basis,  143  pounds  should  be  added  to  that  already  credited.  This 
would  make  the  total  pork  produced  in  lot  1,  206  pounds,  and  the 
total  beef  and  pork  or  meat  produced  4565  pounds  or  456.5  pounds 
beef  and  pork  per  steer.  As  shown  subsequently  in  Table  10  this 
would  still  be  less  than  that  made  in  lots  2,  3,  4,  7,  8,  9,  and  10. 

In  the  above  discussion  we  have  assumed  that  the  first  cause  sug¬ 
gested  was  wholly  responsible  for  the  small  amount  of  pork  pro¬ 
duced  in  lot  1  and  hence  have  given  this  lot  full  benefit  of  the  doubt. 
However,  it  is  possible  that  a  secondary  cause  may  have  been  oper¬ 
ative,  viz.,  that  the  silage  and  corn  meal  ration,  which  is  elsewhere 
shown  to  be  a  very  efficient  ration  for  beef  production,  must  neces¬ 
sarily  be  proportionately  less  valuable  as  a  pork  producer  because  of 
less  feed  available  to  the  pigs  in  the  droppings  of  the  steers.  This 
possible  cause  would  not  in  itself  be  sufficient  to  account  for  the 
small  amount  of  pork  produced  by  the  pig  following  this  lot. 

Referring  to  the  amount  of  pork  made  per  steer  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  largest  gains  on  pigs  were  made  where  shelled  corn  was  fed 
to  the  steers.  This  is  true  not  only  where  the  steers  were  fed  on  a 
brick  pavement,  but  also  in  the  mud  lot.  Observation  revealed  the 
fact  that  the  steers  in  lots  9  and  10  consumed  their  ration  of  corn  in 
much  less  time  than  did  those  in  the  other  lots.  -From  this  fact  we 
assume  the  steers  did  not  masticate  their  corn  as  thoroughly  in 
these  lots  as  did  those  in  which  corn  was  fed  in  other  forms.  It 
should  be  noted  that  25.7  pounds  more  pork  per  steer  was  made 
where  the  steers  were  fed  on  the  pavement  in  lot  10  than  in  lot  9,  the 
mud  lot.  This  is  easily  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  pigs  could 
recover  practically  all  the  waste  in  lot  10,  while  the  condition  of  the 
mud  lot  (9)  was  such  at  times  that  the  pigs  had  but  little  chance 
to  recover  the  waste. 

A  fact  of  considerable  importance  is  to  be  gathered  from  compar¬ 
ing  the  gains  made  by  the  pigs  following  lots  2  and  3  where  the  dif¬ 
ference  in  the  rations  fed  was  that  in  lot  2  the  ear  corn  was 
supplemented  by  a  nitrogenous  supplement  and  in  lot  3  it  was  not.  It 
has  been  frequently  stated  that  it  pays  to  feed  oil  meal  or  other  ni- 


1905.]  Methods  or  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers. 


21 


trogenous  concentrates  if  for  no  other  reason  than  the  benefit  that 
the  hogs  receive  from  following  steers  so  fed.  The  data  presented 
in  Table  6  indicate  that  as  far  as  this  experiment  is  concerned  more 
pork  was  made  per  steer  where  the  corn  was  not  supplemented. 
Careful  examination  of  this  and  data  elsewhere  presented  in  this 
bulletin  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  corn  supplemented  with  a 
nitrogenous  concentrate  is  more  efficient  for  beef  production  than 
where  fed  alone.  If  this  is  true,  should  we  not  reasonably  expect 
that  there  would  be  less  waste  in  the  droppings  in  lot  2  than  in  lot  3, 
and  accordingly  less  gain  on  the  pigs  ? 

The  most  accurate  method  of  arriving  at  the  influences  of  feeds 
and  their  preparation  when  used  for  cattle  feeding  upon  the  amount 
of  pork  produced  by  hogs  following  is  by  means  of  calculating  the 
gains  of  pigs  on  the  basis  of  the  corn  fed  to  the  steers.  By  this 
method,  we  find  that  the  greatest  gain  in  pork  per  100  pounds  of 
corn  fed  the  steers  occurred  in  the  shelled-corn  fed  lots ;  that  it  was 
considerably  less  in  the  lots  fed  shock  corn  and  ear  corn  respectively ; 
that  it  was  only  one  fourth  to  one  third  as  much  in  the  meal  fed  lots 
as  in  those  fed  ear  or  shock  corn;  and  that  by  far  the  smallest 
amount  in  the  silage  fed  lot. 

The  question  is  frequently  asked,  “What  percentage  of  the  cost 
of  the  feed  given  the  steers  may  be  charged  up  to  the  hogs  following 
them  ?”  Sufficient  data  has  already  been  presented  to  show  that  the 
answer  to  this  question  depends  very  largely  upon  the  form  in 
which  the  corn  is  fed  to  the  steers.  In  this  test  figuring  the  gains  on 
the  hogs  worth  five  dollars  per  hundred  weight  the  percentages  of 
the  cost  of  feed  paid  for  by  gains  on  hogs  following  the  various  lots 
are  shown  in  the  last  right  hand  column  in  Table  6. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  at  no  time  during  the  test  did  the 
hogs  get  other  feed  than  that  secured  from  the  droppings  of  the 
steers  and  that  the  steers  did  not  get  as  heavy  grain  rations  for  as 
long  a  time  as  is  the  usual  practice  among  cattle  feeders.  This  leads 
to  the  conclusion  that  gains  of  hogs  and  value  of  same  reported  here 
should  be  looked  upon  as  the  minimum  pork  product  to  be  antic¬ 
ipated  in  cattle  feeding  operations.  As  will  be  seen  by  reference  to 
the  table  the  variation  in  percentages  is  large, — from  .94  to  16.67. 


22 


Bulletin  No.  103. 


[August, 


Table  7.— Economy  op  Gains  as  Measured  by  Feed  Consumed,  Dry 

Matter*  Consumed,  and  Gains  Made 


Lot 

No. 

Form  in  which  corn 
was  fed. 

Pounds  dry  matter  per  steer. 

Dry  matter 
per  lb.  gain. 

In  concen¬ 
trates. 

In  rough- 
age. 

Total  dry 
matter. 

On  steers. 

Steers 
and  pigs. 

1 

Silage,  corn  meal . 

2400.78 

2050.031 

4510.82 

10.35 

10.20 

O 

Ear  corn  . 

3792.19 

1269.21 

5061.40 

11.67 

10.64 

3 

Ear  corn  (without  ni- 

trogenous  concentrates) 

3466.37 

1346.56 

4812.93 

12.46 

10.46 

4 

Corn  meal . 

3225.07 

1395.72 

4620.79 

10.43 

9.96 

5 

Corn  meal  (hay  chaffed) 

3241.65 

1407.30 

4648.95 

10.71 

10.23 

6 

Corn  and  cob  meal . 

3790.73 

1286.71 

5077.44 

11.75 

11.29 

7 

Corn  and  cob  meal  (hay 

chaffed) . . . 

3870.57 

1284.70 

5155.27 

11.31 

10.75 

8 

Shock  corn,  ear  corn  . . 

2474.81 

2726.221 

5201.03 

13.42 

11.29 

9 

Shelled  corn  (mud  lot) 

3226.55 

1429.07 

4655.62 

12.41 

10.09 

10 

Shelled  corn . 

3234.74 

1432.88 

4667.62 

12.58 

9.67 

fifin’ 1  avfi. 

4853 . 90 

11.58 

10.38 

• 

*Dry  Matter.— The  portion  of  a  feed  remaining  after  the  water  or  moisture  contained 
therein  has  been  driven  off  by  heat.  Ordinary  concentrated  feeds  contain  about  10  to  11 
percent  moisture. 

tSilage  and  shock  corn  were  here  considered  as  roughage. 


A  superficial  study  of  the  data  in  Table  7  showing  the  dry  matter 
fed  in  concentrates  and  roughages  in  the  various  lots  would  lead  to 
the  conclusion  that  there  were  wide  differences  existing  in  the  propor¬ 
tion  of  each  fed.  This,  however,  was  not  the  case.  This  point  is 
fully  discussed  under  Table  2  of  this  bulletin. 

On  the  basis  of  the  total  digestible  nutrients  fed  throughout  the 
experiment  to  the  various  lots  the  nutritive  ratio  is : 


Lot 

1 

1 

7.96 

Lot 

2 

1 

7-79 

Lot 

3 

i 

10.43 

Lot 

4 

1 

7.80 

Lot 

5 

1 

7.8l 

Lot 

6 

1 

8.79 

Lot 

7 

1 

8.86 

Lot 

8 

1 

9-25 

Lot 

9 

1 

6.97 

Lot 

10 

1 

6.98 

All  these  ratios  are  too  wide  as  compared  with  the  standard  nu¬ 
tritive  ratio  for  fattening  steers,  a  variation  from  the  standard  which 
is  common  in  the  corn  belt  where  the  effort  is  to  use  as  much  corn  as 


1905.]  Methods  of  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers. 


23 


possible.  It  should  be  remembered  that  this  experiment  was  outlined 
with  reference  to  testing  various  methods  of  feeding  as  practiced  in 
the  corn  belt  rather  than  to  determine  the  effect  of  balancing  rations 
in  fattening  steers.  However,  it  is  interesting  to  note  what  influ¬ 
ence,  if  any,  the  composition  or  nutritive  ratio  of  these  various  feeds 
had  upon  their  efficiency.  In  other  words,  did  the  more  nearly  bal¬ 
anced  rations  prove  most  efficient?  By  referring  to  the  nutritive 
ratios  of  the  rations  used  in  the  various  lots  it  will  be  seen  that  more 
nearly  balanced  rations  were  fed  to  the  steers  in  lots  9,  10,  4,  and  5 
than  in  the  remaining  lots.  It  will  be  seen  that  from  these  lots  and 
these  only  the  cob  was  withheld.  It  is  obvious  that  the  elimination 
of  the  cob  has  a  tendency  to  make  the  ration  more  highly  con¬ 
centrated.  It  is  clear  therefore,  that  the  effect  of  balancing  the  ra¬ 
tion  upon  the  efficiency  of  the  feeds  for  beef  production  can  not  well 
be  determined  from  a  comparison  of  the  dry  matter  required  to  pro¬ 
duce  a  pound  of  gain  in  these  and  the  other  lots.  This  can  best  be 
done  by  comparing  the  amounts  of  dry  matter  required  to  produce 
gains  on  steers  in  lots  2  and  3  where  the  corn  was  fed  as  ear  corn  in 
both  instances  and  where  a  nitrogenous  concentrate  was  added  to  the 
ration  of  lot  2  and  not  to  lot  3.  This  made  considerable  difference 
in  the  nutritive  rations  fed.  Referring  to  Table  7  it  is  seen  that  it 
took  considerably  less  dry  matter  to  produce  a  pound  of  gain  where 
the  ration  was  more  nearly  balanced.  It  is  reasonably  safe  therefore 
to  conclude  that,  in  general,  we  may  say  that  where  other  conditions 
remain  the  same,  rations  which  approach  the  standard  as  to  composi¬ 
tion  are  more  likely  to  show  high  efficiency  for  producing  gain  than 
those  which  vary  widely  from  such  standards.  This  by  no  means 
proves  that  the  use  of  a  nearly  balanced  ration  will  be  followed  by 
greater  profits  in  cattle  feeding  than  one  which  varies  widely  from 
the  standard,  especially  when  the  feeds  available  for  compounding 
the  balanced  ration  are  relatively  expensive  and  those  used  in  com¬ 
pounding  the  ration  widely  at  variance  to  the  standard  are  relatively 
cheap.  As  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  this  is  the  situation 
which  confronts  the  Illinois  cattle  feeder.  The  financial  aspect  of 
this  subject  will  appear  in  the  discussion  under  a  subsequent  table. 

It  is  frequently  true  that  the  best  method  of  making  a  critical 
study  of  the  relative  efficiency  of  feeds  is  to  compare  the  number  of 
pounds  of  dry  matter  required  for  producing  a  pound  of  gain  in  each 
instance.  The  investigation  here  reported  is  a  good  example  of  an 
instance  in  which  it  would  be  obviously  misleading  to  make  such  a 
comparison  in  all  the  lots.  For  example,  the  dry  matter  in  corn  and 
cob  meal  or  ear  corn  required  to  produce  a  pound  of  gain  would  not 
be  comparable  with  the  dry  matter  required  in  corn  meal  or  shelled 
corn  to  produce  the  same  gain.  The  figures  are  given,  however,  to 


24 


Bulletin  No.  103. 


[August, 


make  it  possible  for  the  student  to  compare  on  the  basis  of  dry  mat¬ 
ter  fed,  the  efficiency  of  the  rations  which  are  comparable.  That  is 
to  say,  the  dry  matter  in  shelled  corn  is  comparable  with  that  in 
corn  meal.  In  this  instance  we  see  that  it  requires  over  12  pounds 
of  dry  matter  to  produce  a  pound  of  gain  on  the  steers  where  shelled 
corn  is  fed  and  about  10.5  pounds  where  corn  meal  is  used.  This 
shows  that  corn  meal  is  considerably  more  efficient  for  beef  produc¬ 
tion  than  shelled  corn.  However,  for  combined  beef  and  pork  pro¬ 
duction  shelled  corn  is  fully  up  to  corn  meal  in  efficiency  as  is  shown 
in  the  last  column  of  Table  7. 

The  corn  and  cob  meal  fed  was  17.75  percent  cob.  If  we  deduct 
the  amount  of  cobs  consumed  by  lot  6  from  their  total  feed  and  cal¬ 
culate  the  efficiency  of  their  feed  on  the  basis  of  the  corn  meal 
consumed  as  in  lot  4,  it  is  found  that  10.37  pounds  of  dry  matter 
were  used  per  pound  gain  by  lot  6  as  compared  with  10.43  pounds  by 
lot  4.  In  other  words,  the  cob  added  slightly  to  the  nutritive  value 
of  the  ration.  In  the  same  manner  a  comparison  may  be  made  be¬ 
tween  lots  5  and  7.  Calculating  the  efficiency  of  the  feed  after  de¬ 
ducting  the  cob,  on  the  basis  of  the  dry  matter  required  to  produce 
a  pound  of  gain  on  the  steers  in  lot  7,  it  is  found  that  it  required 
9.978  pounds  of  dry  matter  to  produce  a  pound  of  gain.  This  is  di¬ 
rectly  comparable  with  lot  5  with  which  lot  it  required  10.71  pounds 
dry  matter  to  produce  a  pound  of  gain.  This  indicates  that  the  pres¬ 
ence  of  the  cob  in  the  ration  in  this  instance  was  an  advantage.  That 
the  cob  added  nothing  to  the  profitableness  of  the  rations  is  shown  by 
a  comparison  of  the  profits  in  lots  4,  5,  6,  and  7  in  Table  1 1. 

After  deducting  the  amount  of  cobs  consumed  by  lot  2  from  their 
total  feed,  and  calculating  the  efficiency  of  their  feed  on  the  basis  of 
the  shelled  corn  consumed  as  in  lot  10,  it  is  found  that  10.304  pounds 
dry  matter  were  used  per  pound  gain  on  the  steers  in  lot  2  as  com¬ 
pared  with  12.58  pounds  by  lot  10  (shelled  corn).  This  shows 
forcibly  that  ear  corn  is  much  more  efficient  for  beef  production  than 
is  shelled  corn.  It  further  goes  to  show  that  ear  corn  is  as  efficient 
for  beef  production  as  is  corn  meal,  in  which  case  in  lot  4,  it  took 
10.43  pounds  and  in  lot  5  (not  strictly  comparable  with  lot  2  because 
of  feeding  chaffed  hay)  10.71  pounds  dry  matter  to  produce  a  pound 
of  gain  on  the  steers. 

Few  have  questioned  that  reducing  ear  corn  to  the  form  of  corn 
and  cob  meal  adds  to  its  efficiency  for  beef  production.  The  results 
of  this  experiment  indicate  that,  where  other  factors  are  similar,  the 
mere  changing  of  the  mechanical  condition  of  the  ear  corn  does  not 
add  to  its  efficiency.  For  example,  in  lot  2  where  ear  corn  was  fed, 
it  required  1 1.67  pounds  dry  matter  to  produce  a  pound  of  gain  on  the 
steers,  while  in  lot  6,  where  corn  and  cob  meal  was  fed,  it  required 


1905.1  Methods  of  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers. 


25 


11.75  pounds,  and  in  lot  7,  (not  comparable  with  lot  2  because  of 
feeding  chaffed  hay),  11.31  pounds.  The  amounts  are  so  nearly 
alike  that  it  could  not  be  said  that  corn  prepared  in  one  form  is 
more  efficient  for  producing  gains  on  two  years  old  steers  than  in  the 
other.  But  as  would  be  expected,  where  the  amount  of  pork  made 
by  the  hogs  following  these  two  lots  is  taken  into  consideration,  it 
throws  the  balance  very  decidedly  on  the  side  of  the  ear  corn.  The 
importance  of  this  point  will  be  more  fully  recognized  when  the 
financial  aspect  of  the  experiment  is  considered.  To  summarize 
then,  it  may  be  said  that  the  presence  of  the  cob  in  ground  corn,  as 
in  the  case  of  corn  and  cob  meal,  appears  to  increase  slightly  the 
efficiency  of  the  corn  for  beef  production,  and  that  ear  corn  is  nearly, 
if  not  quite,  as  efficient  for  beef  production  as  corn  and  cob  meal. 

A  given  amount  of  corn  and  cob  meal  produced  considerably 
less  beef  and  pork  combined  than  did  ear  corn  as  shown  by  a  com¬ 
parison  of  lots  2  and  6.  In  comparing  lots  2  and  7  corn  and  cob 
meal  is  more  efficient  than  ear  corn,  but  it  is  not  safe  to  conclude  that 
this  is  due  wholly  to  grinding  because  in  lot  7,  in  case  of  corn  and 
cob  meal,  the  hay  was  chaffed  and  mingled  with  the  grain  which  was 
not  done  in  lot  2.  Corn  meal  proved  much  more  efficient  for  beef 
production  than  shelled  corn  in  this  test,  while  for  combined  beef 
and  pork  production,  they  appear  to  be  about  equally  efficient.  Corn 
meal  however,  is  no  more  efficient  for  beef  production  than  is  ear 
corn  and  the  latter  is  much  more  efficient  for  beef  production  than 
shelled  corn. 


Table  8. — Pounds  gain  on  Steers  and  Steers  and  Hogs  per  Bushel 
(Shelled  Basis)  Supplemented  Corn  Fed 


Lot 

No. 

Pounds  oil  and 
gluten  meal  fed 
per  bu.  corn. 

Pounds  clover 
hay  fed  per  bu. 
corn. 

Pounds  gain  on 
steers  per  bu. 
corn  fed. 

Pounds  gain  on 
steers  and  hogs 
per  bu. 
corn  fed. 

1 

10.121 

24.681 f 

7.93 

8.04 

2 

9.996 

27.241 

7.92 

9.06 

3 

0.000 

27.452 

6.69 

7.98 

4 

9.878 

29.698 

8.02 

8.39 

5 

9.850 

29.778 

7.82 

8.19 

6 

9.979 

27.613 

7.88 

8.21 

7 

9.748 

26.948 

8.13 

8.55 

8 

4.549* 

22. 547 t 

6.41 

7.72 

9 

10.115 

30.512 

6.82 

8.38 

10 

10.120 

30.502 

6.72 

8.74 

*Oil  meal  fed  during  the  latter  part  of  feeding  period  only. 

tThe  roughage  accompanying  the  corn  was  fed  in  these  lots  in  addition  to  the  clover 
hay. 


26 


Bulletin  No.  103. 


[ August , 


In  the  accompanying  data  cattle  feeders  can  see  at  a  glance  the 
efficiency  of  the  various  rations  where  a  bushel  (56  pounds)  of 
shelled  corn  is  taken  as  the  basis.  In  every  instance  corn  was  sup¬ 
plemented  with  clover  hay  and  in  every  instance  but  lot  3  with  a  ni¬ 
trogenous  supplement.  Thus  when  it  is  said  that  a  certain  number 
of  pounds  of  beef,  or  of  beef  and  pork  combined,  is  made  from  a 
bushel  of  corn  it  should  be  noted  that  the  amounts  of  oil  meal, 
gluten  meal,  and  clover  hay  recorded  in  the  tables  were  also  fed. 

Table  9. — Pounds  Dry  Matter  per  Pound  Gain  on  Steers  by  Periods 


By  periods. 


Lot 

No. 

Nov.  28 
to 

Dec.  26. 

Dec.  26 
to 

Jan.  23. 

Jan.  23 
to 

Feb.  20 

Feb.  20 
to 

Mar.  19. 

Mar.  19 
to 

Apr.  16. 

Apr.  16 
to 

June  1. 

A.  V0 

Nov.  28  to 
June  1. 

1 

11,273 

8.242 

8.584 

13.552 

8.723 

12.496 

10.348 

2 

19.609 

7.760 

11.144 

13.789 

12.894 

11.474 

11.671 

3 

16.119 

11.218 

13.240 

10.728 

17.360 

10.825 

12.460 

4 

15.187 

8.490 

9.292 

13.301 

11.303 

9.277 

10.431 

5 

13.676 

8.012 

16.366 

11.138 

10.780 

9.485 

10.708 

6 

14.087 

8.150 

17.095 

10.937 

16.437 

10.334 

11.753 

< 

10.238 

6.912 

21.334 

14.745 

11.589 

11.193 

11.309 

8 

16.069 

15.197 

13.867 

15.497 

13.131 

10.948 

13.422 

9 

11.496 

8.732 

15.601 

18.418 

12.800 

11.841 

12.408 

10 

12.826 

8.847 

13.075 

27.995 

12.202 

1 1 . 555 

12.581 

Gen’l  A  ve. 

13.755 

8.616 

13.297 

13.470 

12.428 

10.751 

11.584 

The  purpose  of  the  above  table  is  to  enable  the  reader  to  tell  at  a 
glance  the  amount  of  dry  matter  required  for  one  pound  of  gain  dur¬ 
ing  any  period  of  the  experiment.  Referring  to  the  lower  line  of  the 
tabulation  we  see  that  on  the  average  the  greatest  expenditure  of 
feed  for  the  gain  secured  was  in  the  first  month,  the  smallest  in  the 
second  month,  an  increased  amount  being  required  during  the  third 
and  fourth  months,  with  a  gradual  decrease  from  the  fourth  month 
to  the  end  of  the  experiment.  The  most  expensive  gains,  therefore, 
were  not  made  during  the  last  weeks  of  the  fattening  period,  as  is 
often  the  case  in  finishing  steers.  This  is  probably  due  to  the  method 
of  feeding  the  cattle,  by  which  the  grain  was  given  in  gradually  in¬ 
creasing  amounts  with  a  corresponding  decrease  in  roughage  to  the 
end  of  the  fattening  period.  By  this  method  the  small  final  gains  which 
result  from  heavy  grain  feeding  at  the  beginning  of  a  six  months' 
period  are  avoided. 


1905. \  Methods  of  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers. 


27 


It  will  be  noticed,  both  in  the  general  average  and  in  the  data  for 
each  lot  that  there  is  considerable  variation  in  the  amount  of  dry- 
matter  used  per  pound  gain  in  the  different  periods  of  the  test.  It 
will  be  observed  in  Tables  3  and  4  that  while  the  amount  of  grain 
was  gradually  increased  and  the  roughage  gradually  diminished,  the 
rate  of  gain  of  the  cattle  fluctuated  from  period  to  period.  The  effi¬ 
ciency  of  the  animal  may  vary  at  different  periods,  due  to  the  excre¬ 
tion  of  varying  proportions  of  the  digested  nutrients  of  the  feed 
consumed.  On  account  of  the  possible  number  and  complexity  of  fac¬ 
tors  involved  in  producing  these  fluctuations  it  is  impracticable  to 
assume  that  any  single  cause  contributed  largely  in  producing  them. 

Financial  Statement 

Since  the  practice  of  buying  feeders  in  the  Chicago  market  is 
becoming  more  common  the  following  figures  will  be  of  interest. 
The  average  price  of  the  cattle  when  purchased  in  Chicago  last  fall 
was  $4,267;  the  cost  of  the  cattle  in  the  experimental  feed  lots  at 
Champaign  just  as  they  came  from  the  cars  and  before  being  allowed 
to  fill  was  $4,654  per  cwt.  The  latter  figure  is  secured  by  adding  to 
the  original  cost  of  the  feeders  the  expenses  occasioned  by  freight, 
shrinkage  in  weight  in  transit,  commissions  and  an  occasional  small 
bill  for  hay  at  the  yards.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  taking  shrunk 
weights  at  feed  lots  the  cattle  cost  $.387  per  cwt.  more  than  in 
Chicago.  Of  this  expense  $.257  per  cwt.  was  occasioned  by  shrink¬ 
age,  $.0817  by  freight,  $.0438  by  commission  and  $.004  by  feed  bills. 
In  this  statement  no  mention  is  made  of  the  expenses  of  the  buyer, 
because  these  vary  so  much  with  the  distance  from  market  and  the 
number  of  cattle  handled. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  cattle  were  not  placed  in  the 
experiment  immediately  upon  their  arrival  at  the  experimental  cattle 
feeding  plant,  but  were  kept  for  some  time  in  the  feed  lots  to  accus¬ 
tom  them  to  their  new  surroundings  and  submit  them  to  a  period  of 
preliminary  feeding,  and  furthermore  to  give  them  an  opportunity  to 
fill.  It  was  not  the  purpose  to  permit  the  fill  to  figure  in  the  average 
daily  gains  of  the  various  lots.  The  gains  reported  therefore,  are  by 
no  means  as  large  as  they  would  have  been  if  the  fill  were  averaged 
in.  The  financial  aspect  of  this  fact  can  be  appreciated  when  we  note 
that  while  the  steers  cost  an  average  of  $4,654  per  cwt.  delivered  in 
the  feed  lots,  by  securing  the  fill  and  the  apparent  large  gains  at  the 
start  for  feed  consumed,  the  cattle  cost  only  $4,531  per  cwt.  at  the 
time  the  experiment  proper  began. 

In  submitting  the  following  financial  statement  therefore,  we 
have  used  $4.53  per  cwt.  as  the  initial  cost  of  the  steers.  These 


28 


Bulletin  No.  103. 


[ August , 


figures  indicate  that  in  this  instance  $.26  per  cwt.  should  be  added 
to  the  Chicago  price  if  it  is  desired  to  determine  the  cost  of  the 
steers  in  the  feed  lot. 

•V-  /  1 

Itemized  Financial  Statement 


Lot,  1,  10  Steers. 

459.61 
146.43 
41.12 
32.73 
58.98 
54.27 

24.80 
818.94 


By  10  Steers,  14,240  lb.  at  86.10  per  cwt . 8  868.64 

By  63  lb.  Pork  at  $5.00  per  cwt .  3.15 


Total  receipts . $  871.79 

Total  expenditures  .  818.91 

Total  profit .  52.85 

Profit  per  steer .  5.28 


To  10  Steers,  10,146  lb.  at  $4.53  per  cwt . $ 

11.052  tons  corn  meal  at  813.34  per  ton . 

1.418  tons  gluten  meal  at  829.00  per  ton  . 

1.364  tons  O.  P.  linseed  cake,  pea  size,  $24.00  per  ton  . 

21.447  tons  silage  at  $2.75  per  ton.  . 

6  784  tons  of  clover  hay  at  88.00  per  ton . 

Freight  Champaign  to  Chicago,  commission,  yardage,  feed  and 
other  expenses  . 

Total  expenditures . 8 


Lot  2,  15  Steers. 


To  15  Steers,  15,680  lb.  at  84.53  per  cwt . 8  710.30 

27.98  tons  ear  corn  at  $10.20  per  ton . .  285.40 

2.081  tons  gluten  meal  at  829.00  per  ton  .  60.34 

2.027  tons  O.  P.  linseed  cake,  pea  size,  at  824.00  per  ton .  48.64 

11.195  tons  clover  hay  at  $8.00  per  ton .  89.56 

Freight  Champaign  to  Chicago,  commission,  yardage,  feed  and 

other  expenses .  37.26 

Total  expenditures  . . . 81231.50 

By  15  Steers,  21,660  lb.  at  86.15  per  cwt . $1332.09 

By  939  lb.  Pork  at  85.00  per  cwt  .  46.95 


Total  receipts . 81379.04 

Total  expenditures  .  1231.50 


Total  profit . 8  147.54 

Profit  per  steer .  9.84 


Lot  3,  15  Steers. 

To  15  Steers,  15,146  lb.  at  84.53  per  cwt . 8  686.11 

29.464  tons  ear  corn  at  $10.20  per  ton .  353.00 

11.88  tons  clover  hay  at  88.00  per  ton .  95.04 

Freight  Champaign  to  Chicago,  commission,  yardage,  feed  and 

other  expenses .  .  37.26 

Total  expenditures . $1118.94 


By  15  Steers,  20,  330  lb.,  at  85.95  per  cwt . 8  1209.64 

By  1112  lb.  Pork,  at  $5.00  per  cwt .  55.60 

Total  receipts . 8  1265.60 

Total  expenditures .  .  1118.94 

Total  profits . 8  146.30 

Profit  per  steer  .  9.75 


1905.]  Methods  of  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers. 


29 


Lot  4,  15  Steers. 

To  15  Steers,  14,980  lb.  at  $4.53  per  cwt .  $  678.59 

23.197  tons  corn  meal  at  $13.34  per  ton  . . .  309.44 

2.077  tons  gluten  meal  at  $29.00  per  ton . .  .  60.23 

2.015  tons  O.  P.  linseed  cake,  pea  size  at  $24.00  per  ton . .  48.36 

12.302  tons  clover  hay  at  $8.00  per  ton .  . . ....  98.42 

Freight  Champaign  to  Chicago,  commission,  yardage,  feed  and 

other  expenses  .  37.41 


Total  expenditures . . $1232.45 

By  15  Steers,  21,250  lb.  at  $6.15  per  cwt .  .$1306.87 

By  310  lb.  Pork  at  $5.00  per  cwt .  15.50 


Total  receipts  . $1322.37 

Total  expenditures . . . . .  1232.45 


Total  profit . $  89.92 

Profit  per  steer . .  5.99 


Lot  5,  15  steers. 

To  15  Steers,  15,  583  lb.  at  $4.53  per  cwt .  .  .  $  705.91 

23.328  tons  corn  meal  at  $13.34  per  ton .  311.19 

2.077  tons  gluten  meal  at  $29.00  per  ton .  60.03 

2.026  tons  O.  P.  linseed  cake,  pea  size,  at  $24.00  per  ton .  48.62 

12.405  tons  clover  hay  (chaffed)  at  $9.00  per  ton .  111.64 

Freight  Champaign  to  Chicago,  commission,  yardage,  feed  and 

other  expenses .  37.41 


Total  expenditures . . $1274.80 

By  15  Steers,  21,580  lb.  at  $6.15  per  cwt .  $1327.17 

By  304  lb.  Pork  at  $5.00  per  cwt .  .  15.20 

Total  receipts . $1342.37 

Total  expenditures .  1274.80 


Total  profit . $  67.57 

Profit  per  steer  .  4.50 


Lot  6,  15  Steers. 

To  15  Steers,  15,340  lb.  at  $4.53  per  cwt  .  $  694.90 

27.985  tons  corn  and  cob  meal  at  $11.44  per  ton .  320.14 

2.077  tons  gluten  meal  at  $29.00  per  ton  .  60.23 

2.025  tons  O.  P.  linseed  cake,  pea  size,  at  $24.00  per  ton .  48.60 

11.350  tons  clover  hay  at  $8.00  per  ton .  90.80 

Freight  Champaign  to  Chicago,  commission,  yardage,  feed  and 

other  expenses .  37.25 


Total  expenditures . $1251.92 

By  15  Steers,  21,370  lb.  at  $6.10  per  cwt . $1303.57 

By  270  lb.  Pork  at  $5.00  per  cwt .  13.50 


Total  receipts . $1317.07 

Total  expenditures .  1251.92 


Total  profit . $  65.15 

Profit  per  steer .  4.34 


30 


Bulletin  No.  103. 


[ August , 


Lot  7,  15  steers. 


To  15  Steers,  15,002  lb.  at  $4.53  per  cwt . $  679.59 

28.655  tons  corn  and  cob  meal  at  $11.44  per  ton .  327.81 

2.077  tons  gluten  meal  at  $29.00  per  ton .  60.03 

2.026  tons  O.  P.  linseed  cake,  pea  size,  at  $24.00  per  ton .  48  62 

11.342  tons  clover  hay  (chaffed ;  at  $9.00  per  ton .  102.08 

Freight  Champaign  to  Chicago,  commission,  yardage,  feed  and 

other  expenses  .  37.17 


Total  expenditures .  $1255  30 


By  15  steers,  21,530  lb.  at  $6.15  per  cwt . $1324.10 

By  360  lb.  Pork  at  $5.00  per  cwt .  18.00 


Total  receipts . $1342  10 

Total  expenditures .  1255.30 


Total  profit . $  86.80 

Profit  per  steer  .  5.78 


Lot  8,  10  steers. 


To  10  steers  10,375  lb.  at  $4.53  per  cwt . $  469.98 

12.594  tons  ear  corn  at  $10.20  per  ton . .  128.46 

1.359  tons  O.  P.  linseed  cake,  pea  size,  at  $24.00  per  ton .  32  61 

13.672  tons  shock  corn  at  $5.40  per  ton. . .  73.85 

6.735  tons  clover  hay  at  $8.00  per  ton .  53.88 

Freight  Champaign  to  Chicago,  commission,  yardage,  feed  and 

other  expenses .  24.81 


Total  expenditures. . $  783.61 


By  10  steers,  13,960  lb.  at  $6.05  per  cwt . $844.58 

By  735  lb.  Pork  at  $5.00  per  cwt .  .  36.75 


Total  receipts . $881.33 

Total  expenditures  .  783  61 


Total  profit . $  97.72 

Profit  per  steer .  . $  9.77 


Lot  9,  10  Steers. 


To  10  Steers,  10,273  lb.  at  $4.53  per  cwt .  $465  37 

15.402  tons  of  shelled  corn  at  $12.48  per  ton .  192.21 

1.427  tons  gluten  meal  at  $29.00  per  ton .  41.38 

1.365  tons  O.  P.  linseed  cake,  pea  size,  at  $24.00  per  ton .  32.76 

8.392  tons  clover  hay  at  $8.00  per  ton .  67.13 

Freight,  Champaign  to  Chicago,  commission,  yardage,  feed  and 

other  expenses .  25  03 

Total  expenditures . $823.88 

By  10  Steers,  13,820  lb.  at  $5.95  per  cwt  . $822.29 

By  858  lb.  Pork  at  $5.00  per  cwt .  42.90 


Total  receipts  . $865.19 

Total  expenditures  .  823.88 


Total  profit . $  41.31 

Profit  per  steer .  4.13 


1905. J  Methods  of  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers. 


31 


Lot  10,  10  Steers. 

To  10  Steers,  10,295  lb.  at  $4.53  per  cwt . $466.36 

15.449  tons  shelled  corn  at  $12.48  per  ton .  192.80 

1.427  tons  gluten  meal  at  $29.00  per  ton .  41.38 

1.365  tons  O  P.  linseed  cake,  pea  size,  at  $24.00  per  ton  .  32.76 

8.415  tons  clover  hay  at  $8.00  per  ton  .  67.32 

Freight,  Champaign  to  Chicago,  commission,  yardage,  feed  and 

other  expenses  .  24.83 

Total  expenditures . $825.45 


By  10  Steers,  13,620  lb.  at  $6.05  per  cwt . $824.01 

By  1115  lb.  Pork  at  $5.00  per  cwt .  55.75 


Total  receipts . $879.76 

Total  expenditures .  825.45 


Total  profit . . $  54.31 

Profit  per  steer  .  5.43 


The  detailed  financial  statement  submitted  shows  that  no  ac¬ 
count  was  taken  of  the  labor  involved  in  feeding  steers  after  the 
feed  was  prepared.  It  is  thought  that  the  amount  of  labor  involved 
in  feeding  the  steers  in  the  various  lots  was  practically  the  same 
after  the  feed  was  prepared.  No  charge  is  made  for  labor  in  caring 
for  the  steers  nor  for  bedding,  neither  is  any  value  assigned  to  the 
manure  made  by  the  steers.  It  is  believed  that  the  agricultural  value 
of  the  manure  intelligently  preserved  and  distributed  would  be  suf¬ 
ficient  to  balance  the  cost  of  the  bedding  and  labor  involved. 

A  further  discussion  of  the  financial  bearing  of  this  test  will  be 
found  in  the  discussion  following  Table  n. 

The  data  in  Table  io.are  presented  to  aid  the  reader  in  summar¬ 
izing  the  results  of  the  experiment  under  consideration.  All  of  the 
data  in  the  table  except  lines  5,  6,  7  and  8  are  presented  elsewhere 
in  the  bulletin.  Lines  1  and  4  are  discussed  in  connection  with  table 
3  ;  line  2,  with  table  5  ;  line  3  simply  combines  lines  1  and  2 ;  and  line 
8  is  discussed  in  connection  with  Table  6.  Lines  5  and  6  give  an  idea 
of  the  amount  of  concentrates  and  line  7  the  proportion  of  a  ton  of 
clover  hay  fed  per  steer  during  the  entire  feeding  period.  From  this 
data  the  cattle  feeder  can  readily  compute  the  feed  required  for  fat¬ 
tening  such  steers  as  are  here  used  after  the  methods  of  feeding  fol¬ 
lowed.  It  also  emphasizes  the  uniformity  in  amounts  of  feed  fed  the 
various  lots. 


Table  10.— Summary  of  Gains  and  Feed  Consumed  in  Pounds 


32 


Bulletin  No.  103. 


[ August , 


• 

i— 

o 

r- 

Cl 

r— 

o 

QO 

o 

1—1 

d  C 

CD 

40 

Ow 

r-H 

pi 

QO 

40 

+J 

- - « 

OJ  o 

o 

f— ( 

oi 

y—l 

40 

QO 

Ol 

o 

1- 

oo 

o 

o 

h2 

XI  o 

in 

CO 

rH 

. 

r- 

o 

i  - 

Ol 

o 

Cl 

d 

r-H 

oo 

w2 

o 

o 

pi 

CO 

pi 

+-> 

o 

■— 1  Wh  p  4-> 

b  o  a  o 

iC 

r— 

40* 

GO 

p 

Ol 

o’ 

o 

GC 

lO 

Ol 

1-1 

X3  CJ  -X1— 1 

03 

CO 

pi 

o 

• 

C-' 

M  O 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

pi 

o 

J  - 

Ol 

CO 

40 

o 

o 

r— 

QO 

-M 

o  o  P  o 

r— 

CO 

1— 1 

OJ 

w 

Port  w 
in  d 

GO 

r— 

CD 

40 

1- 

r— 

CO 

Ol 

QJ 

ra  — r  ■ ' 

CO 

• 

— h 

o 

Ol 

40 

t- 

rt  ®  >4  oj 
p  p  rt  ijc 

Cl 

o 

Cl 

t-H 

CD 

r— 

CO 

+-> 

40 

-+l 

oi 

Ol 

CD 

r— 

fH 

w 

1-2 

>-c  o  -P  cb 
®  O  rP 

to 

Ol 

r— 

O 

pi 

o 

Q  o  cj 

CO 

C2 

CO 

o 

CO 

Ol 

o 

o 

40 

40 

CD 

P  x>  ^ 

C!  o  5j 

o 

o 

o 

rc 

GO 

GC 

r— 

r- 

4-> 

oi 

QO 

o’ 

oi 

co 

r-H 

CJ 

L  U  M 

CO 

r1^ 

40 

O 

pi 

i-2 

o  S 

o 

O 

r- 

• 

Tf 

Ol 

CO 

o 

Ol 

40 

P  r-H 

T-^ 

o 

r— i 

CO 

o 

o 

GO 

t— 

w  rt 

o  aj  i-J  ?K 

o 

—h 

Ol 

40 

r- 

* 

0‘ 

o 

O 

CO 

Ol 

40 

o 

i-2 

o 

O 

O 

cc 

CD 

OJ 

GO 

CO 

o 

Ol 

C  >-5 

QO 

CD 

40 

CO 

Ol 

CO 

GO 

4-4 

J-l  p 

O  OJ 

O  S 

Ol 

O 

CO 

oi 

o 

40* 

d 

o 

-f 

05 

sO 

o 

T-^ 

s2 

pi 

40 

atii  - 

Ol 

* 

r— 

CO 

o 

QO 

o 

o 

CO 

CO 

-  cor 
ithoi 
rogei 
s  cor 
sen¬ 
ates. 

Ol 

CD 

pi 

pi 

o 

o 

Ol 

I  — 

r- 

o 

o 

i- 

pi 

oi 

o 

QO 

IT- 

CD 

o 

o 

I-* 

w2 

is 

a  —  a 

CO 

pi 

o 

m 

O 

O 

o 

CO 

o 

r— 

Cvl 

• 

t- 

CD 

co 

CO 

i  - 

CO 

r— 

^O  ! 

»-  c 

• 

• 

• 

• 

o 

p  ^ 

CO 

oi 

CO 

oi 

pi 

r- 

s2 

M  O 

M  CJ 

CO 

CD 

o 

o 

c 

QO 

OJ  ^ 

— t- 

O 

1— 

o 

I- 

to 

r-H 

00 

CO 

r-H 

CO 

Oi 

pi 

ro 

4-4 

P  w  <U 

40 

CD 

OJ 

oi 

Tt* 

CO 

o 

o 

g 

C/3  C 

CO 

40 

40 

f— i  ■ 

pi 

pi 

40 

P 


u 

<u 

0J 

4-> 

GO 

<L>  rt 

P-73 
a 
p  o 

•  r-l  a 

P  H 

o 


u  ■ 
0)  T3 
Q.  0J 
<D 
SH 
CD 
<y  ^ 
O  -*-> 

P  g 

o  S 

^  cd 

a  - 

M  <U 

^  oj 

O  co 

cl 


ps 

<D 

o 

p 

o 

J-l 

Ph 

«+-t 

<u 

aj 

X! 

P5 

P 

P 

J* 

u 

O 

cu 


Ih 

(U 

a 


CD 


<U 

<3J 

4- > 
CD 

5- l 

<u 

a 


P  c 

*2  o 
P 

be  5 

CD 

^  u 

ex  o 

P  *+-i 


£  X 

c  <v  CD 
CJ  32  CD 

oj  p 

g-CP 

ffl  " 


CD  P 

'p 

§  3  c 

CL  o 


p 

0) 

6 
a 

P  oj 


CD 

c  > 

fcp  CJ 


>4 

P 


P3  'C 
<V  P 

is 


OJ  S- 

^  e  « 

.5  « 


bo 


aj 

> 

< 


i-i 

OJ 

u 

4-4 

CD 


•— ;  cd  __  x 
rtoT^aj^- 
■m  a  oj  u  qj  o 
OWU  C,*j  >H 
33 


bO 

P 

•  i-P 

C 

OJ 

-4-4 

-4-4 

P 


^  O 

<u  P 

4->  ^ 

ti  o 

P  >-i 

E  ~ 


CO 

OJ  I 

P- 

p 

> 

P 


O 


oj  • 

G  O 

3  s 


rH  Ol 


CO 


40 


QO 


♦Nitrogenous  concentrates  were  fed  in  all  other  lots  than  3,  the  only  difference  between  lots  2  and  3  being  that  lot  2  received  a  nitrogenous 
concentrate  and  lot  3  did  not. 

toil  meal  was  used  in  lot  8  as  a  supplement  to  corn  during  the  latter  part  of  the  feeding  period  only. 


Table  11.— Market  Value  of  Each  Lot  at  Close  of  Experiment  and  Margin  Profit  for  Each  Lot 


1905.]  Methods  of  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers. 


33 


40 


r— 1 

. 

<->  C 

40 

CD 

CO 

Ol 

CO 

rH 

O  t- 

CO 

40 

-8 

r— 

40 

,  p. 

o 

O 

40 

40 

05 

o 

-8  G> 

Tfl 

O. 

rH 

o 

Ol 

CD 

t»  o 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•  • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

-a  u 

CO 

CD 

rH 

rH 

I 

40 

t— 

CO 

1 

c: 

i 

a 

I- 

a 

i—  • 

IO 

CD 

CO 

Ol 

CO 

^H 

O  r— 

CO 

-8 

>o 

OO 

o 

o  o 

05 

05 

-r 

r— 

o 

co  o 

rH 

CD 

CO 

Ol 

05 

+J 

• 

• 

Ol 

o 

•O  TJ 

i2  a 

lj  6 

lO 

40 

rH 

rH 

rH 

i 

CD 

r-1 

o 

1 

H 

1 

J3  ' — 

GO 

40 

40 

_  rt  _• 

40 

GO 

Ol 

QO 

O  CD 

r— 

CD 

rH 

40 

Ol 

r-H 

+-> 

o  u-  1- 

o 

CD 

O 

40 

I  - 

1—  O 

i- 

TT 

o 

CD 

r— ' 

o 

J 

_e  o  -o  o 
S(icu 

M 

CD 

40* 

- 

rH 

rH 

05 

▼"H 

r— 

40 

40 

1 

I- 

j=  : 

*. 

C  P,  0?  •’3 

40 

CO 

o 

h- 

o 

O  l- 

GO 

40 

CD 

on 

o 

r— 

4-> 

- u  s «  ^ 

r~< 

GO 

CO 

CD 

r* 

CO 

t-8  O 

1  - 

o 

^8 

40 

05 

co 

c 

uJ 

U  6  5.  CTJ 

w  c  -a 

ca  o 

CD 

40 

- 

rH 

rH 

40 

00 

CO 

rH 

CO 

1 

05 

1 

CD 

“d  __ I 

O 

CO 

CO 

r— 

CO 

X 
O  r— 

t-H 

r— 

GO 

40 

05 

c  rs 

rH 

CO 

CO 

40 

CD 

Ol 

CO  o 

CO 

CD 

o 

rH 

rH 

4-> 

c 

cs 

e  S 

CD 

40 

rH 

rn 

rH 

r8 

CD 

Ol 

40 

o 

P  _ 

1 

rH 

1— 1 

u  S 

1 

05 

lO 

40 

«— 1 

GO 

Ol 

05 

-8 

rH  |— 

O 

I- 

00 

r-P 

40 

40 

v 

r— ( 

05 

CO 

CD 

CD 

Ol 

CO  o 

40 

05 

rH 

rH 

CD 

CD 

4_) 

c  >N  O 

• 

• 

o 

i-3 

w  It: 
c  5,7; 

5  -3 

CD 

40 

r-H 

rH 

p-8 

CD 

Ol 

40 

1 

o 

1 

U 

40 

e  -' 

40 

O 

ir- 

Ol 

05 

40 

Ol  I  - 

05 

40 

CO 

-8 

40 

40 

4-> 

«-  CS 

O  V 

ac 

<M 

CD 

CD 

CO 

Tf  O 

05 

T 

CD 

CD 

O 

u  s 

CD 

40 

rH 

rH 

rH 

40 

GO 

CO 

rH 

CO 

1 

05 

1 

CO 

CS  ,  ■  . 

05 

5o«  Sot 

40 

O 

4- 

Ol 

05 

40 

Ol  ■  - 

40 

Ol 

CD 

CO 

CD 

p> 

O  «G  O  O  ^ 

05 

40 

05 

CD 

r-  o 

r— 

rH 

CO 

CO 

Ol 

Ol 

o 

p-  .d  a  c  ^ 

• 

• 

Ol 

40 

1 

LI 

ca  ^  d  aj  °  »- 

40 

40 

rH 

r-H 

05 

t- 

40 

1 

Ol 

r— 

• 

40 

GO 

40 

Ol 

-+i 

Ir- 

05  CD 

-8 

r— 

•H 

O0 

co 

r— 

4-> 

c3  >- 

r-H 

CD 

T— ( 

CD 

GO 

CD  O 

00 

o 

40 

CD 

CO 

05 

c 

L 

w  o 
o 

CD 

40 

rH 

rH 

05 

Ol 

^H 

t— 

40 

1 

CD 

"C3 

O 

40 

Ol 

t- 

05 

40 

r-  t  - 

GO 

r— 

t— 

CO 

-8 

00 

rH 

vt  v 

rH 

I- 

<M 

40 

40 

cc 

co  o 

Ol 

40 

r-r 

G 

ao 

p> 

V  6 

CO 

40 

^4 

^H 

40 

CD 

Ol 

rH 

o 

o 

6j0  G 

CO 

m 

€© 

m  m 

€0- 

r— ' 

LI 

rd  o 

i 

&> 

C/3  U 

1 

be-*-1 

he  • 

cn 

he 

P 

P 

P 

p 

• 

P 

p 

p  ° 

—  o 

• 

4-> 

< V 

P 

• 

dJ 

• 

<u 

• 

<U 

cu 

• 

<U 

0 

* 

■i 

.3  G 

• 

CL 

* 

r-P 

• 

> 

* 

> 

* 

> 

> 

* 

> 

> 

• 

CJ  dJ 

>3 

• 

+-> 

r—i 

<U 

*~o 

P 

• 

O 

* 

o 

* 

o 

o 

* 

o 

o 

d 

2  G 

s 

CD 

c 

<u 

r— i 

— 1 

1—1 

r— < 

p  — < 

<u  d 

• 

<L> 

U 

(L> 

•  • 

u 

V 

• 

o 

u 

. 

o 

O 

• 

CL  >• 

pi  > 

* 

P 

o 

P 

o 

fj 

cn 

G 

O 

•  -t— 

CD 

, 

(£ 

v 

CD 

CD 

, 

CD 

CD 

• 

2  bo  • 

""■S 

he  • 
c  • 

i-> 

•  * 

4-> 

c 

• 

4-> 

G 

* 

4-P 

c 

+j 

G 

* 

4-» 

c 

-4— 1 

c 

• 

*  (-L-I  C 

tw( 

out 

O  P> 

•  i-H 

o 

o 

•  H 

.  dJ 
dJ 

dJ 

<V 

* 

<u 

01 

• 

0 

0 

• 

•  rH 

P> 

3 

rH 

o 

G 

p> 

c 

G 

G 

4-J 

V 

• 

U 

• 

O 

o 

. 

o 

o 

£ 

o 

p 

<u 

A 

o 

o 

lO 

+-> 

T3 

13 

L-> 

•Pp 

<u 

p 

o 

M 

P 

O 

A 


m 

a 

•F-P 

CTj 

0 


£ 

c 

Li 

0) 

p. 

CO 

lC 

h-‘ 

+-> 

co 

o 

o 

4J 

73 

Jp 

cc 

u 

o 

o 

p: 

o 

C/3 

a: 

& 

'd 

cH 

H 

b£ 


cj 

C 

•rP 

03 

<U 

73 

D 

1) 

*-> 

cj 

o 

be 

c 

•a 

a> 

13 

fa 


0  a; 

-P  CD 

n 


O  ^ 
.  <D 

P  > 

=:  d 
'j  G3 
P  r& 

V 'd 
ao 


o 

o 

-p 

o 

G 


<D 

G3 


£ 

O 


<u 


0) 

G 

d 

> 

P> 

0 

GiJ 

P 

d 


Gl 

O 

d 

0 

-u 

d 

-G 

> 


p> 

co 
O 

O  r© 

0 

d  <-) 

-P  G 
OG  . 
+-*  O  0  o 

^G-C' 

2«*  ^ 


g  S.'S 

O  m  > 
o  -r  .H 

o  « 

L,  aj 

-P  P 

o 


p  o 

&  cu 

p  p 

d  o, 

cn  .  d 
<U  «£)  > 

O  c 


(L> 

G  £ 
O 


G 

O 

o 

GJ 

0 

t> 

•  r-P 
0 
u 
<u 

p 


G  L 
<l  t; 
o  > 
G  D 

nG  P 

. 

©•h  Cl, 

CO  -tj  c  C 
.cc  ■ 1 — 1  p  * ' — 1  Gd  • 

P  heiG  G  b£  p  bJO 


P , 

bjo  ^ 

G 


O 


r- 

.2  £ 

o 


y 

G  ^ 

Pr©  <u 

0)  o  A 

p> 

p  p  Lj 

^  a, 


p 

CL 


4-1  O 


CD  l° 

32  CO 

P 

0  G 
G  o 


40 

CO 

G 

P 

O 

u 


o 

G 

P 

O 

o 


d 

be 


©OPGOPOP 

+jCrin!UdCd 


M 
O  £ 

Q.  CO 

p  a 

O  +-> 

+-i  © 


°  o 

2  v 
b/)^ 
d 


G 

bjo 

p 

d 

"  s 

bJD  B 
G  P> 

•  r-P  ^ 


P  J—  P  4 — 
©.(!>• 
(L>  G  <V  G 
+J  O  4->  O 
CO  -P>  CO  4-3 

p  ft  p  Jr; 

d;  QJ  qj 

p  Qh  Q- 

i+j  o  o 

CG.CC 


P 

<D  _ 

(U  G 
O 
co  +-> 


O 

G 

P 

O 

o 

p ' 

<u 

(U 


o 

40 

G 

p 

o 

o 

■  p" 

<u 

0) 


co  ,  co 


P 

<u 


isi  O 
P  U 

2  ^ 

CL  © 


o  >03 
p 


o  00 

P  ee  _ 

^  ^  t>> 

1 1  d  j  i  d 

Oj  ©  .G 


p 

P  <V  P 
cu  —  <u  G-  dj 
Pl^G.0  CL0- 

t!  S  ^  ®  *Z  ® 

CC3  -  CG  O  CG  O 

o^r  O'-1  o  — ■ 

p  &  P  P  a© 

^  ^  P^>  ^  >3 

d  d  ^_j  d 
(L>  rG  d)  rG 


p> 

Q)  rM 


O 

G>  . 
G  .’ 

p 

o  • 

o  • 

p"  ! 
<D 

<U  • 
+->  • 

co  ■ 

P  ’ 

a> 

CG  O 

2  «© 

Cl  ►> 

I,  d 

oj  g: 

Jz; 


CD 

s=  o 

—  Ol 

CO 

t8 

40 

CD 

t- 

00  05 

O 

Ol 

CO 

p< 

La  * 

r-r 

rH 

rH 

rH 

*Corn  ai  $.35  per  bushel  and  clover  hay  at  $8.00  per  ton. 
+The  pork  produced  is  here  taken  into  c  msideration. 
ttThe  use  of  -  in  the  table  means  loss  instead  of  profit. 


34 


Bulletin  No.  103. 


\  August  y 


Table  1 1  groups  some  very  important  data.  Line  i  for  example 
shows  that  some  of  the  lots  were  in  better  marketable  condition  than 
others.  The  steers  in  lots  2,  4,  5,  and  7  seemed  to  be  in  the  best  con¬ 
dition  and  they  were  so  uniform  in  condition  (uniformity  in  quality 
was,  by  design,  the  same  in  all  lots)  that  they  sold  equally  well  on 
the  market.  Lots  3  and  9  sold  at  the  lowest  price  of  any  of  the  lots, — 
twenty  cents  per  hundred  weight  less  than  the  top, — while  lots  1,  6, 
8,  and  10  were  sold  for  but  five  cents  per  hundred  weight  less  than  the 
best.  Line  2  shows  the  price  per  hundred  weight  each  lot  had  to 
sell  for  in  order  to  make  it  possible  for  the  cattle  feeder  to  “break 
even”.  The  figures  presented  do  not  take  into  consideration  the  pork 
produced.  They  are  valuable  in  emphasizing  to  what  a  large  extent 
the  method  of  feeding  may  affect  the  margin  necessary  for  coming 
out  even  in  cattle  feeding  operations.  This  is  perhaps  more  clearly 
brought  out  in  line  3  where  the  margin  between  buying  and  selling 
price  necessary  to  come  out  even  is  stated.  The  results  of  this  ex¬ 
periment  clearly  indicate  that  simple  methods,  or  in  other  words, 
cattle  feeding  practice  involving  but  a  small  amount  of  labor  require 
considerably  smaller  margins  than  do  more  complicated  methods  in¬ 
volving  a  large  labor  element.  It  shows  that  under  conditions  ob¬ 
taining  in  this  experiment  and  with  feeds  at  the  prices  named  it  is 
sometimes  possible  to  feed  without  loss  choice  1000  pound  feeding 
cattle  on  as  low  a  margin  as  $1.00  per  hundred  weight.  That  the 
method  of  feeding  should  make  as  high  as  55  cents  per  hundred 
weight  difference  in  the  margins  necessary  for  finishing  steers  is  a 
subject  worthy  of  careful  consideration  by  every  cattle  feeder. 

There  is  much  of  importance  in  the  data  presented  in  lines  4,  5, 
6,  and  7.  Compare  for  example  lines  4  and  5  and  it  is  seen  that  in 
all  lots  except  9  and  10  where  the  corn  part  of  the  ration  was  fed  in 
the  shelled  form  the  margin  per  hundred  weight  was  sufficient  to 
show  some  profit  without  taking  into  account  the  pork  produced. 
In  the  two  lots  mentioned  the  extent  of  profit  depended  entirely  upon 
the  amount  of  pork  produced.  Line  6  shows  that  not  counting  the 
pork  porduced  the  margin  of  profit  was  as  large  or  larger  where 
corn  was  fed  whole  (except  in  case  of  shelled  corn)  than  it  was 
where  meal  was  used. 

Many  who  advocate  the  feeding  of  ear  corn  to  cattle  if  hogs 
follow,  advocate  the  feeding  of  meal  if  for  any  reason  it  is  impossible 
to  have  hogs  follow  the  cattle.  The  writer  has  been  of  this  opinion 
but  the  results  of  this  experiment  indicate  that,  after  eliminating  the 
hog  from  the  cattle  feeding  operations  here  presented,  the  feeding 
of  broken  ear  corn  was  followed  with  larger  profits  than  the  feeding 
of  meal. 


1905. 1  Methods  of  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers. 


35 


Line  7  shows  that  the  largest  margin  of  profit  per  hundred 
weight  is  found  where  corn  was  fed  in  the  form  of  shock  or  fodder 
corn,  and  ear  corn,  and  this  too  without  the  addition  of  a  con¬ 
centrated  nitrogenous  supplement.  Line  8  brings  out  clearly  the 
influence  of  methods  of  preparation  upon  cost  of  gains.  A  compari¬ 
son  of  cost  of  gains  means  but  little  unless  the  quality  of  the  product 
is  taken  into  consideration.  It  is  safe  to  conclude  that  the  quality  or 
character  of  the  gains  made  in  lots  2,  4,  5,  and  7  were  approximately 
the  same  since  they  sold  in  the  open  market  at  the  same  price  per 
hundred  weight;  however,  we  find  that  the  gains  in  these  lots  cost 
respectively  $.067,  $.075,  $.079,  and  $.076.  It  is  seen  by  this  that  cost 
of  gains  was  least  in  lot  2  where  broken  ear  corn  supplemented  with 
gluten  meal  and  oil  meal  and  clover  hay  was  fed.  It  should  be 
noted,  however,  that  the  gains  in  all  the  lots  were  in  some  cases  con¬ 
siderable  and  in  others  only  slightly  less  than  eight  cents  per  pound. 

Line  9  briefly  sums  up  the  whole  matter.  The  net  profit  per  steer 
in  each  lot  including  receipts  for  gains  made  on  hogs  following  the 
cattle  is  for  lot  1,  $5.28;  lot  2,  $9.84;  lot  3,  $9.75 ;  lot  4,  $5.99;  lot 
5>  $4-5°;  lot  6>  $4-34;  lot  745.78;  lot  8,  $9.77;  lot  9,  $4.13 ;  and  lot 
10,  $5.43.  These  results  indicate  that  with  conditions  obtaining 
during  the  progress  of  this  experiment  it  was  not  as  profitable  to 
grind,  shell,  or  silo  the  corn  or  chaff  the  hay  as  the  feeding  of  the 
same  feeds  in  a  more  natural  state.  Broken  ear  corn  either  with  or 
without  a  nitrogenous  supplement  and  shock  or  fodder  corn,  all  fed 
in  conjunction  with  clover  hay,  gave  the  largest  net  profits  per  steer. 
These  differences  are  sufficiently  large  to  make  it  safe  to  accept  the 
results  without  reserve.  Lines  to,  n,  12,  13,  and  14  show  what 
results  would  follow  had  feeds  been  of  other  values  than  those  used 
in  this  bulletin.  Line  12  illustrates  the  fact  that  unless  higher  prices 
for  fat  cattle,  or  lower  prices  for  stock  cattle,  or  both,  prevail  than 
in  conditions  here  recorded,  the  possibilities  of  profit  with  corn  at  40 
cents  per  bushel  and  clover  hay  at  $10.00  per  ton  are  very  small 
indeed. 

Lines  11,  12,  13,  and  14  are  presented  too,  that  the  reader  may 
determine  whether  or  not  it  would  pay  to  grind,  shell,  or  silo  the 
corn  had  feeds  been  higher.  By  referring  to  the  data  given  it  will 
be  seen  that  the  more  simple  methods  of  preparing  the  feeds  which 
have  been  elsewhere  shown  to  be  practically  as  efficient  for  beef  pro¬ 
duction,  and  fully  so  for  combined  beef  and  pork  production  show 
smaller  losses  than  where  the  corn  was  siloed,  ground,  or  shelled. 


Bulletin  No.  103. 


{August, 


30 


Table  12.— Shipping  and  Slaughter  Weights 


Lot 

No. 

Ave.  shrink¬ 
age  per  steer 
in  shipping, 
lb. 

Percent 
shrinkage  in 
shipping. 

Percent 
carcass  to 
live  weight. 

Ave. 

weight  of 
hides, 
pounds. 

Percent 
fat.  f 

1 

26.50 

1.82 

62.70 

87.29 

8.60 

2 

35.00 

2.36 

63.20 

87.80 

8  55 

3 

40.60 

2.91 

61.10 

85.83 

7.68 

4 

25.00 

1.73 

62.70 

84.16 

8.68 

5 

34.30 

2.33 

62.40 

85.19 

8.41 

6 

30.00 

2.06 

62.10 

85.07 

8.48 

i 

20.66 

1.41 

61.10 

85.10 

8.37 

8 

29.00 

2.03 

62  30 

84.03 

8.98 

9 

20.50 

1  46 

61.60 

84.85 

8.46 

10 

38.50 

2.03 

61.80 

83.76 

7.70 

tThis  includes  gut  fat,  gut  end  fat,  caul  and  raffle  in  the  following  percentages 
respectively: 


Lot 

No. 

Caul, 

Ruffle, 

Gut, 

Gut  end, 

Total,  * 

1 

1.8S 

1.62 

4.73 

.37 

8.60 

2 

1.85 

1.69 

4.67 

.34 

8.55 

3 

1.67 

1.47 

4.20 

.34 

7.68 

4 

1.83 

1.75 

4.75 

.35 

8.68 

5 

1.82 

1.66 

4.61 

.32 

8  41 

6 

1.79 

1.72 

4.62 

.35 

8.48 

7 

1.84 

1.64 

4.56 

.33 

8.37 

8 

1.97 

1.76 

4.89 

.36 

8.98 

9 

1.72 

1.79 

4.63 

.32 

8.46 

10 

1.67 

1.51 

4.19 

.33 

7.70 

*“The  carcass  fats  are  net  included  in  these  items.  There  are  such  fats  as  Tripe 
fats.  Chip  fat,  No.  1  Fat  Trimmings,  and  No.  2  Fat  Trimmings,  which  derive  from  every 
carcass,  we  get  about  130  pounds  of  this  extra  fat  to  every  100  pounds  of  caul,  ruffle, 
gut  and  gut  end  fat.”  Geo.  L.  Franklin  of  S.  and  S.  Co. 


1905.]  Methods  of  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers.  37 

Table  12  shows  the  average  shrink  per  steer  in  each  lot  in  ship¬ 
ping  from  Champaign  to  Chicago,  the  percents  of  shrink,  dressed 
beef,  and  fat  and  the  weight  of  hides.  There  was  no  effort  made  to 
so  handle  the  cattle  that  an  abnormally  light  shrink  would  result;  on 
the  contrary,  a  normal  shrinkage  was  desired  in  order  to  secure 
normal  percentages  of  dressed  beef.  The  largest  shrink  occurred  in 
lots  2,  3,  5,  and  10  and  the  smallest  in  lots  7  and  9.  In  general  the 
shrinkage  in  the  different  lots  is  not  sufficiently  variable  to  have  any 
special  significance.  The  differences  that  are  shown  are  undoubtedly 
due  largely  to  the  difference  in  the  way  the  different  lots  “filled”  in 
the  yards.  It  has  been  frequently  stated  that  silage  feeding  is  con¬ 
ducive  to  large  shrinkage  in  shipping.  This  did  not  prove  to  be  true 
in  this  instance. 

The  percentages  of  dressed  beef  in  the  different  lots  does  not 
vary  directly  with  the  condition  or  degree  of  fatness  of  the  lots  as  is 
usually  the  case  where  no  unusual  circumstance  is  operating.  In  this 
instance  relatively  large  or  small  shrinkages  in  shipping  were  im¬ 
portant  factors  in  determining  the  percentages  of  dressed  beef.  For 
example,  the  large  shrinkage  in  shipping  of  lot  3  undoubtedly  raised 
the  normal  percentage  of  dressed  beef  in  this  lot,  while  the  relatively 
small  percentage  of  shrink  in  lot  7  lowered  the  natural  percentage 
of  dressed  beef  in  this  lot.  The  percentages  of  dressed  beef  taken  as 
a  whole,  however,  indicate  that  the  cattle  were  well  finished  and 
ready  for  market. 

The  accompanying  Table  (13)  gives  the  individual  gains  of  the 
steers  in  the  different  lots  from  December  26  to  April  16,  a  period  of 
sixteen  weeks  and  also  from  December  26  to  May  28,  a  period  of 
twenty-two  weeks.  In  general  the  daily  gains  were  larger  for  the 
whole  22  weeks  during  which  this  record  was  kept  than  for  the  first 
16  weeks.  The  most  uniform  gains  were  made  by  the  steers  in  lots  5 
and  7,  while  the  greatest  variation  is  noted  in  lots  3,  8,  9,  and  10. 
The  largest  average  daily  gain  made  by  any  steer  was  made  by 
No.  341  in  lot  4;  the  second  largest  gains  by  No.  312  in  lot  2.  The 
former  made  an  average  daily  gain  of  3.57  pounds  per  day  and  the 
latter  3.54  pounds.  The  smallest  daily  gain,  .53  of  a  pound,  was 
made  by  steer  No.  415  in  lot  9.  Two  steers  in  lot  10  made  small 
average  daily  gains,  viz.,  Nos.  428  and  429,  the  gains  of  which  were 
respectively  .89  and  .98  of  a  pound  daily.  These  wide  variations  of 
course  represent  but  the  extremes.  A  careful  study  of  the  table  will 
show,  however,  that  there  was  considerable  variation  in  the  gains  of 
individual  steers.  These  variations  simply  emphasize  former  rec¬ 
ords,  showing  that  steers  vary  considerably  as  to  their  capacity  for 
making  gains.  It  is  impossible  to  state  whether  or  not  the  steers 
making  the  largest  gains  were  the  most  economical  producers  of  beef 


1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 


22 

D( 

M; 

3 

1 

2 

2 

2 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

o 


Bulletin  No.  103. 


Table  13. — Individual  Gains  of  Steers* 


During 

first 

16  weeks 
Dec.  26- 
Apr.  16. 

During 

22  weeks 
Dec.  26- 
May  28. 

Lot 

No. 

No.  of 
Steer. 

During 

first 

16  weeks 
Dec.  26- 
April  16. 

2.08 

2.305 

4 

341 

3.52 

2.62 

2.662 

4 

342 

1.83 

1.74 

1.850 

4 

343 

2.72 

1.96 

2.013 

4 

344 

2.50 

2.05 

2.110 

4 

345 

2.41 

2.76 

2.889 

4 

346 

2.07 

2.54 

2.564 

4 

317 

2.50 

2.50 

2.564 

4 

348 

2.41 

3.08 

3.084 

4 

349 

2.14 

3.48 

2.824 

4 

350 

2.27 

4 

351 

2.27 

2.18 

3.92 

2.49 

2.23 

2.370 

3.538 

2.467 

2.597 

4 

4 

4 

4 

352 

353 

354 

355 

1.65 

2.72 

1.83 

2.44 

1.51 

1.493 

2.85 

2.954 

5 

356 

1.83 

3.12 

3.051 

5 

357 

1.65 

1.78 

1.980 

5 

358 

1.96 

3.21 

2.780 

5 

359 

2.36 

2.98 

2.207 

5 

360 

1.78 

2.72 

2.759 

5 

361 

2.05 

1.91 

2.013 

5 

362 

2.05 

1 .69 

1.915 

5 

363 

2.54 

2.76 

2.727 

5 

364 

1.96 

2.67 

2.629 

5 

365 

2.72 

5 

366 

2.76 

2.23 

2.18 

1.47 

2.63 

2.240 

2.078 

1.590 

2.662 

5 

5 

5 

5 

367 

368 

369 

370 

2.36 

2.76 

2.54 

2.67 

1.20 

1.363 

2.23 

2  435 

2.63 

2.662 

1  .47 

1.785 

2.45 

2.597 

2.17 

2.500 

1.20 

1.590 

2.45 

2.177 

1.78 

2.078 

2.36 

2.337 

2.63 

2.629 

weights  were  taken  May  28,  1904,  and  not  June  1  wh 


1905.]  Methods  of  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers. 


39 


Table  13— Continued. 


Lot 

No. 

No.  of 
Steer. 

During 

first 

16  weeks 
Dec.  26- 
Apr.  16. 

During 

22  weeks 
Dec.  26- 
May  28. 

Lot 

No. 

No.  of 
Steer. 

During 

first 

16  weeks 
Dec.  26- 
April  16. 

During 
22  weeks 
Dec.  26- 
May  28. 

6 

371 

2.14 

2.142 

8 

386 

2.49 

2.467 

6 

372 

1.43 

1.785 

8 

387 

1.96 

2.078 

6 

373 

2.23 

2.727 

8 

388 

1.96 

2.045 

6 

374 

1.51 

2.013 

8 

389 

2.18 

2.370 

6 

375 

2.63 

2.597 

8 

390 

1.47 

1 .753 

6 

376 

1 .92 

1.850 

8 

391 

1.65 

1 .655 

6 

377 

3.03 

2.954 

8 

392 

1 .51 

1.720 

6 

378 

2.67 

2.662 

8 

393 

2.49 

2.370 

6 

379 

2.32 

2.402 

8 

394 

2.18 

2.337 

6 

380 

1.78 

2.370 

8 

395 

1.83 

2.272 

6 

381 

2.18 

2.013 

6 

6 

6 

6 

382 

383 

384 

385 

2.59 

2.99 

3.08 

2.32 

2.857 

2.564 

3.019 

2.240 

9 

9 

9 

9 

411 

412 

413 

414 

2.00 

2.98 

1.96 

1.74 

2.110 

1.948 

2.142 

1.558 

9 

415 

.53 

1.071 

9 

416 

1.47 

1.785 

9 

417 

2.14 

2.435 

7 

396 

2.00 

2.337 

9 

418 

2.67 

2.629 

7 

397 

2.14 

2.272 

9 

419 

2.27 

2.207 

7 

398 

2.94 

2.759 

9 

420 

2.50 

2.370 

7 

399 

3.03 

2.564 

9 

7 

400 

2.00 

2.785 

7 

401 

2.32 

2.629 

10 

421 

2.14 

2.013 

ry 

l 

402 

3.21 

2.467 

10 

422 

2.00 

1.948 

7 

403 

2.98 

2.987 

10 

423 

2.94 

2.824 

7 

404 

2.50 

2.500 

10 

424 

2.63 

2.889 

n 

l 

405 

2.00 

2.177 

10 

425 

2.32 

2.370 

7 

406 

2.14 

2.078 

10 

426 

1.74 

1.525 

7 

407 

2.23 

2.564 

10 

427 

1.38 

1.558 

7 

408 

1.96 

2.500 

10 

428 

.89 

1.331 

*7 

( 

409 

2.67 

2  727 

10 

429 

.98 

1.363 

7 

410 

1.16 

2.207 

10 

430 

2.18 

2.142 

since  the  steers  were  fed  in  lots  of  ten  and  fifteen.  In  general,  it  was 
observed  that  the  rapid  gainers  were  large  eaters.  These  variations 
in  gains  of  individual  steers  indicate  that  it  is  a  very  hazardous  un¬ 
dertaking  to  conduct  a  cattle  feeding  experiment  with  less  than  ten 
steers  in  a  lot. 


Conclusions 

Rapid  Gains  and  Quick  Finish 

1.  The  average  daily  gain  per  steer  in  pounds  in  the  various  lots 
is  as  follows:  Lot  i,  2.34;  lot  2,  2.33;  lot  3,  2.08;  lot  4,  2.38;  lot  5, 
2.33  ;  lot  6,  2.32 ;  lot  7,  2.45  ;  lot  8,  2.08 ;  lot  9,  2.02  ;  and  lot  10,  1.99 
pounds. 

2.  Silage  ranks  with  ear  corn,  corn  meal,  and  corn  and  cob  meal 
in  its  ability  to  make  rapid  gains  on  fattening  cattle. 


40 


Bulletin  No.  103. 


[August, 


3.  Corn  meal  and  corn  and  cob  meal  seem  to  be  about  equally 
efficient  in  producing  quick  finish. 

4.  In  this  test  more  rapid  gains  were  secured  with  whole  than 
with  shelled  corn  and  equally  as  good  as  with  meal. 

5.  A  reasonably  quick  finish  may  be  secured  without  the  feeding 
of  an  excessively  heavy  grain  ration.  In  this  test  the  largest  average 
amount  of  concentrates  fed  daily  throughout  the  experiment  was  in 
lots  2,  6,  7,  and  8,  in  all  of  which,  the  cob  is  included.  The  daily 
ration  of  concentrates  in  these  lots  varied  from  23  to  23.5  pounds 
or  approximately  one  peck  of  ear  corn  and  3  pounds  of  gluten  meal 
or  oil  meal  per  thousand  pounds  live  weight  of  cattle. 

6.  The  feeding  of  a  nitrogenous  concentrate  to  supplement  corn 
undoubtedly  stimulates  the  appetite  and  increases  the  capacity  of  the 
steer  for  consuming  to  advantage  large  quantities  of  concentrates. 
Hence  this  system  of  feeding  is  to  be  recommended  where  a  quick 
finish  is  desired. 


Economical  Gains  ;  Efficiency  of  Feeds 

7.  Where  conditions  are  such  as  prevailed  in  this  experiment, 
corn  and  cob  meal  is  not  so  valuable  for  fattening  steers,  pound  for 
pound  as  corn  meal. 

8.  The  presence  of  the  cob  in  ground  corn  does  not  appear  to 
materially  increase  the  efficiency  of  corn  for  beef  production  or  for 
combined  beef  and  pork  production  under  conditions  prevailing  in 
this  test.  Whether  or  not  the  cattle  feeder  should  use  corn  meal  or 
corn  and  cob  meal  is  largely  a  matter  of  convenience,  what  roughage 
is  used,  how  the  corn  part  of  the  ration  is  supplemented  with  other 
concentrates,  and  perhaps  the  season  during  which  it  is  used. 

9.  A  given  amount  of  corn  and  cob  meal  did  not  produce  any 
more  beef  and  considerably  less  beef  and  pork  combined  than  did  ear 
corn. 

10.  Corn  meal  proved  much  more  efficient  for  beef  production 
than  shelled  corn,  while  for  combined  beef  and  pork  production,  they 
appear  to  be  about  equally  efficient. 

11.  Corn  meal  is  not  more  efficient  for  beef  production  than  is 
ear  corn. 

12.  Ear  corn  is  much  more  efficient  for  beef  production  than  is 
shelled  corn. 

13.  This  test  indicates  that  the  supplementing  of  corn  with  ni¬ 
trogenous  concentrates  used  in  this  instance  increases  the  efficiency 
of  corn  and  clover  hay  for  beef  production. 

14.  The  chaffing  of  hay  and  mingling  it  with  the  concentrates  in 
the  form  of  meals  did  not  add  materially  to  their  efficiency  for  beef 


1905.']  Methods  of  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers. 


41 


production,  although  by  this  system  of  feeding  there  is  less  likeli¬ 
hood  of  getting  the  steers  off  feed  or  of  scouring. 

15.  By  following  the  method  employed  in  this  test  of  getting 
cattle  on  full  feed,  large  and  economical  gains  may  be  secured  up  to 
the  time  of  marketing  without  the  length  of  the  finishing  period 
being  materially  lengthened.  That  is  to  say,  as  large  and  as  cheap 
gains  are  made  during  the  last  as  the  first  half  of  the  feeding  period. 

Pork  Made 

16.  The  amount  of  gain  made  by  hogs  following  steers  appears 
to  be  largely  regulated  by  the  amount  of  undigested  corn  in  the  drop¬ 
pings  of  the  steers  in  an  available  form  for  the  hogs  to  recover; 
therefore,  larger  gains  are  made  by  hogs  following  steers  fed  corn 
only  than  where  it  is  supplemented  with  oil  meal  and  gluten  meal 
thus  rendering  it  more  efficient  for  beef  production. 

17.  Where  enough  pigs  are  provided  to  consume  undigested  feed 
in  the  droppings  of  steers  it  requires  fully  twice  as  many  where  corn 
is  fed  whole  as  it  does  where  meal  is  fed  to  the  steers. 

18.  The  gain  on  hogs  following  the  different  lots  of  steers  per 
steer  in  pounds  was  as  follows :  Lot  1,  6.3  ;  lot  2,  62.6 ;  lot  3,  74.13  ; 
lot  4,  20.66;  lot  5,  20.02;  lot  6,  18.00;  lot  7,  24.00;  lot  8,  73.5 ;  lot 
9,  85.8;  and  lot  10,  1 1 1.5  pounds.  The  pounds  gain  made  by  the 
hogs  per  100  pounds  corn  fed  the  steers  was  as  follows:  Lot  1,  .19; 
lot  2,  1.68 ;  lot  3,  1.89 ;  lot  4,  .67 ;  lot  5,  .65 ;  lot  6,  .46 ;  lot  7,  .63  ;  lot 
8,  1. 81 ;  lot  9,  2.79;  lot  10,  3.61. 

Profitable  Gains. — Miscellaneous 

19.  For  profit  to  the  cattle  feeder  the  three  rations  giving  best  re¬ 
returns  ranked  as  follows :  Ear  corn  supplemented  with  oil  meal 
and  gluten  meal;  shock  or  fodder  corn  and  ear  corn;  and  ear  corn 
without  supplement,  clover  hay  being  fed  in  all  the  lots.  The  profits 
in  these  lots,  2,  3,  and  8,  were  so  nearly  alike  that  the  conclusion  that 
the  feeding  of  any  one  of  these  rations  would  be  followed  by  larger 
profits  than  the  feeding  of  the  others  would  be  unwarranted. 

20.  The  three  rations  giving  smallest  net  profits  were  shelled 
corn  (mud  lot),  corn  and  cob  meal,  corn  meal  (hay  chaffed).  In 
each  of  these  instances  the  corn  part  of  the  ration  was  supplemented 
with  oil  meal  and  gluten  meal. 

21.  The  cost  per  pound  of  gain  on  the  steers  varied  with  the 
different  methods  of  feeding  from  5.9  to  7.9  cents  per  pound. 

22.  There  was  a  difference  of  twenty  cents  per  hundred  weight 
in  the  marketable  finish  of  the  various  lots. 

23.  The  net  profit  varied  from  $4.13  to  $9.84  per  steer. 


42 


Bulletin  No.  103. 


[ August , 


24.  From  the  records  of  this  experiment,  $0.26  per  hundred 
weight  should  be  added  to  the  cost  of  feeders  in  market  to  determine 
their  cost  delivered  in  feed  lots  where  freight  rates  and  shrinkage 
in  shipping  are  comparable  with  conditions  obtaining  in  this  test. 

25.  The  method  of  feeding  steers  may  make  as  much  as  $0.50 
per  hundred  weight  difference  in  the  margin  necessary  for  coming 
out  even.  The  methods  involving  least  labor  requiring  a  margin  of 
approximately  $1.00  per  hundred  weight  for  choice  steers,  while 
those  requiring  a  maximum  amount  of  labor  require  a  margin  of 
about  $1.50  per  hundred  weight.  Steers  fed  by  the  former  method 
are  not  as  a  rule  in  as  desirable  marketable  condition  as  those  fed  by 
more  complex  methods,  hence,  the  latter  usually  command  a  higher 
price  on  the  market;  in  this  instance  the  difference  was  but  $0.20  per 
hundred  weight. 

26.  The  results  of  this  experiment  are  so  striking  that  it  appears 
that  the  grinding  of  corn  for  feeding  choice  two  year  old  steers  dur¬ 
ing  the  winter  season  is  not  warranted.  The  profits  of  feeding  ear 
corn  are  fully  twice  as  large  as  those  secured  in  feeding  corn  meal  or 
corn  and  cob  meal. 

27.  The  feeding  of  silage  in  moderate  quantities  is  not  necessar¬ 
ily  conducive  to  heavy  shrinkage  in  shipping  or  small  percentages  of 
dressed  beef.  The  reader  is  cautioned  not  to  conclude  that  since  the 
feeding  of  silage  was  not  followed  with  as  large  profits  as  the  feed¬ 
ing  of  several  other  rations,  that  it  has  no  place  in  beef  production. 
Its  use  in  growing  young  cattle  and  as  a  part  of  the  ration  of  the 
breeding  herd  promises  well  in  the  hands  of  the  experienced  feeder, 
but  to  just  what  extent  it  may  be  profitably  used  for  these  purposes 
remains  to  be  determined  by  future  investigations. 

28.  Many  who  advocate  the  feeding  of  ear  corn  to  cattle  if 
hogs  follow,  advocate  the  feeding  of  meal  if  for  any  reason  it  seems 
desirable  to  eliminate  the  hog.  The  results  of  this  experiment  do 
not  warrant  such  a  conclusion.  After  eliminating  the  hog  from  the 
cattle  feeding  operations  here  presented  the  feeding  of  broken  ear 
corn  was  followed  with  larger  profits  than  the  feeding  of  meal. 

29.  Since  the  profits  in  feeding  shock  or  fodder  corn  and  ear 
corn  are  approximately  the  same  the  writer  is  inclined  to  favor  the 
feeding  of  ear  corn  in  preference  to  fodder  corn  because  in  feeding 
fodder  corn  one  is  sometimes  obliged  to  get  on  the  land  when  it  is 
too  wet.  This  statement  applies  especially  to  seasons  of  the  year 
when  bad  weather  is  likely  to  prevail. 

30.  While  the  results  of  this  experiment  show  that  it  does  not 
pay  to  grind  corn  for  winter  feeding  it  should  not  be  assumed  that 
it  does  not  pay  to  grind  corn  for  cattle  that  are  being  fattened  in 
summer  on  grass. 


1905.]  Methods  of  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers. 


43 


Plate  1.  Lot  1  at  time  op  marketing  June  2,  1904.  Market  value 
$6.10  per  cwt.  Ration  made  up  of  silage,  corn  meal, 

GLUTEN  MEAL,  OIL  MEAL,  AND  CLOVER  HAY. 


44 


[A  ugust 


Bulletin  Xo.  10J. 


Plate  2.  Lot  2  at  time  of  marketing  June  2,  1904.  Market  value 
.$0.15  per  cwt.  Ration  made  up  of  ear  corn,  gluten 

MEAL,  OIL  MEAL,  AND  CLOVER  HAY. 


1905.']  Methods  of  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers. 


45 


Plate  3.  Lot  3  at  time  of  marketing  June  2,  1904.  Market  value 
$5.95  per  cwt.  Ration  made  up  of  ear  corn  and  clover  hay. 


40 


Bulletin  No.  103 


[August  y 


Plate  4.  Lot  4  at  time  of  marketing  June  2,  1904.  Market  value 
$6, 1 5  per  cwt.  Ration  made  up  of  corn  meal,  gluten 

MEAL,  OIL  MEAL,  AND  CLOVER  HAY. 


1905.]  Methods  of  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers. 


47 


Plate  5.  Lot  5  at  time  of  marketing  June  2,  1904.  Market  value 
$6.15  per  cwt.  Ration  made  up  of  corn  meal,  gluten 

MEAL,  OIL  MEAL,  AND  CLOVER  HAY  (CHAFFED). 


48 


Bulletin  No.  103 


[August, 


Plate  6.  Lot  6  at  time  of  marketing  June  2,  1904.  Market  value 
$6.10  per  cwt.  Ration  made  up  of  corn  and  cob  meal, 

GLUTEN  MEAL,  OIL  MEAL,  AND  CLOVER  HAY. 


1905. J 


Method  of  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers. 


49 


Plate  7.  Lot  7  at  time  op  marketing  June  2,  1904.  Market  value 
$6.15  per  cwt.  Ration  made  up  op  corn  and  cob  meal,  gluten 

MEAL,  OIL  MEAL,  AND  CLOVER  HAY  (CHAFFED). 


50 


Bulletin  No.  103 


[ August , 


Plate  8.  Lot  8  at  time  of  marketing  June  2,  1904.  Market  value 
16.05  per  cwT.  Ration  made  up  of  shock  or  fodder  corn, 

EAR  CORN,  AND  CLOVER  HAY;  ALSO  OIL  MEAL  DURING 
THE  LATTER  PART  OF  THE  FEEDING  PERIOD. 


1905. ]  Methods  of  [Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers.  51 


w 

P 

p 

< 

> 

Eh 

H 

M 

K 

<5 


o 

05 


c<f 

w 

z 

p 

o 

z 

1—1 

=-l 

P 

P 

« 

< 

S 

P 

o 

p 

§ 

Eh 

Eh 

<3 

05 

Eh 

O 

P) 


05 

p 

Eh 

<! 

P 

Cu 


Z 

p 

Eh 

P 

P 

0 

55 

« 

O 

0 

Q 

P 

P 

P 

p 

a 

CO 

p 

o 

P 

P 

P 

Q 

<1 

§ 

Z 

o 

M 

Eh 

« 


Eh 

£ 

O 

M 

P 

P 

»o 

05 

id 

ee 


Eh 

O 

J 

Q 

P 

^-1 


>H 

<3 

a 

a 

p 

5> 

O 

P 

o 

Q 

Z 

< 

p 

P 

§ 

P 

hH 

o 

p~ 

<3 

P 

s 


Bulletin  No.  103 


[  Ay  gusty 


52 


Plate  10.  Lot  10  at  time  op  marketing  June  2,  1001.  Market  value 
$6.05  per  cwt.  Ration  made  up  of  shelled  corn, 
gluten  meal,  oil  meal  and  clover  hay. 


1905. J 


Methods  of  Preparing  Corn  for  Fattening  Steers 


53 


Prate  11.  No.  319  in  Lot  2.  The  best  prime  steer  in  any 

LOT  AT  TIME  OF  MARKETING. 


LffBSP 

.  • 


■ 


.  . 


' 


- 

■  .  .  ..  . 


.  ■ 


■  ■ 

. 

' 

< 


. 


■ 


. 


* 


. 


